• Felix Balzer, Marit Habicher, Michael Sander, Julian Sterr, Stephanie Scholz, Aarne Feldheiser, Michael Müller, Carsten Perka, and Sascha Treskatsch.
• Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz, Berlin, Germany.
• J. Int. Med. Res. 2016 Aug 1; 44 (4): 832-43.

ObjectiveContinuous invasive arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring remains the gold standard for BP measurement, but traditional oscillometric non-invasive intermittent pressure (NIBP) measurement is used in most low-to-moderate risk procedures. This study compared non-invasive continuous arterial BP measurement using a Nexfin® monitor with NIBP and IBP monitors.MethodsThis was a single-centre, prospective, pilot study in patients scheduled for elective orthopaedic surgery. Systolic BP, diastolic BP and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) were measured by Nexfin®, IBP and NIBP at five intraoperative time-points. Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots and trending ability of Nexfin® measurements were used as criteria for success in the investigation of measurement reliability.ResultsA total of 20 patients were enrolled in the study. For MAP, there was a sufficient correlation between IBP/Nexfin® (Pearson = 0.75), which was better than the correlation between IBP/NIBP (Pearson = 0.70). Bland-Altman analysis of the data showed that compared with IBP, there was a higher percentage error for MAPNIBP (30%) compared with MAPNexfin® (27%). Nexfin® and NIBP underestimated systolic BP; NIBP also underestimated diastolic BP and MAP. Trending ability for MAPNexfin® and MAPNIBP were comparable to IBP.ConclusionNon-invasive BP measurement with Nexfin® was comparable with IBP and tended to be more precise than NIBP.© The Author(s) 2016.

17 keywords...

hide…