Accuracy and Precision of Continuous Noninvasive Arterial Pressure Monitoring Compared with Invasive Arterial Pressure
- 1 May 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Anesthesiology
- Vol. 120 (5), 1080-1097
- https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000000226
Abstract
Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring devices are available for bedside use, but the accuracy and precision of these devices have not been evaluated in a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring with invasive arterial pressure monitoring. Random-effects pooled bias and SD of bias for systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, and mean arterial pressure were calculated. Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring was considered acceptable if pooled estimates of bias and SD were not greater than 5 and 8 mmHg, respectively, as recommended by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Twenty-eight studies (919 patients) were included. The overall random-effect pooled bias and SD were −1.6 ± 12.2 mmHg (95% limits of agreement −25.5 to 22.2 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure, 5.3 ± 8.3 mmHg (−11.0 to 21.6 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure, and 3.2 ± 8.4 mmHg (−13.4 to 19.7 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure. In 14 studies focusing on currently commercially available devices, bias and SD were −1.8 ± 12.4 mmHg (−26.2 to 22.5 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure, 6.0 ± 8.6 mmHg (−10.9 to 22.9 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure, and 3.9 ± 8.7 mmHg (−13.1 to 21.0 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure. The results from this meta-analysis found that inaccuracy and imprecision of continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring devices are larger than what was defined as acceptable. This may have implications for clinical situations where continuous noninvasive arterial pressure is being used for patient care decisions.Keywords
This publication has 62 references indexed in Scilit:
- Non-invasive continuous arterial pressure monitoring with Nexfin® does not sufficiently replace invasive measurements in critically ill patientsBritish Journal of Anaesthesia, 2013
- Noninvasive Continuous Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring with Nexfin®Anesthesiology, 2012
- A comparison of a continuous noninvasive arterial pressure (CNAP™) monitor with an invasive arterial blood pressure monitor in the cardiac surgical ICUAnnals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 2012
- QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy StudiesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2011
- Hemodynamic monitoring and management in patients undergoing high risk surgery: a survey among North American and European anesthesiologistsCritical Care, 2011
- Noninvasive cardiac output and blood pressure monitoring cannot replace an invasive monitoring system in critically ill patientsBMC Anesthesiology, 2009
- A Comparison of Noninvasive Blood Pressure Measurement on the Wrist with Invasive Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring in Patients Undergoing Bariatric SurgeryObesity Surgery, 2008
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986