Key result
Non-invasive blood pressure monitoring significantly overestimated systolic pressure and underestimated diastolic and mean arterial pressures compared to invasive monitoring during high-risk surgeries.
Why the study?
Intraoperative blood pressure monitoring guides hemodynamic management, but there is a need to compare non-invasive and invasive blood pressure monitoring methods in patients undergoing high-risk prolonged surgeries.
Does non-invasive blood pressure monitoring accurately reflect invasive blood pressure monitoring in patients undergoing high-risk prolonged surgeries?
Population
40 patients undergoing high-risk prolonged surgeries
Comparison
Non-invasive oscillometric blood pressure monitoring vs invasive blood pressure monitoring via radial artery line
Design
Comparative observational study
Authors
Loading...
NIBP differs significantly from invasive readings in high-risk surgery; leaves open whether routine invasive monitoring improves outcomes pending larger trials.
Observational (n=40)
No
Does non-invasive blood pressure monitoring accurately reflect invasive blood pressure monitoring in patients undergoing high-risk prolonged surgeries?
Invasive blood pressure monitoring remains recommended for high-risk surgeries due to significant discrepancies (overestimation of systolic and underestimation of diastolic/MAP) when using non-invasive oscillometric methods.
Dutta et al. (2021) conducted an observational in High-risk prolonged surgeries (n=40). Non-invasive blood pressure monitoring vs. Invasive blood pressure monitoring was evaluated on Blood pressure measurement comparison (systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure). Non-invasive blood pressure monitoring significantly overestimated systolic pressure and underestimated diastolic and mean arterial pressures compared to invasive monitoring during high-risk surgeries.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: