Continuous noninvasive pulse wave analysis using finger cuff technologies for arterial blood pressure and cardiac output monitoring in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Standard
Continuous noninvasive pulse wave analysis using finger cuff technologies for arterial blood pressure and cardiac output monitoring in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Saugel, Bernd; Hoppe, Phillip; Nicklas, Julia Y; Kouz, Karim; Körner, Annmarie; Hempel, Julia C; Vos, Jaap J; Schön, Gerhard; Scheeren, Thomas W L.
in: BRIT J ANAESTH, Jahrgang 125, Nr. 1, 07.2020, S. 25-37.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Review › Forschung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Continuous noninvasive pulse wave analysis using finger cuff technologies for arterial blood pressure and cardiac output monitoring in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Saugel, Bernd
AU - Hoppe, Phillip
AU - Nicklas, Julia Y
AU - Kouz, Karim
AU - Körner, Annmarie
AU - Hempel, Julia C
AU - Vos, Jaap J
AU - Schön, Gerhard
AU - Scheeren, Thomas W L
N1 - Copyright © 2020 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/7
Y1 - 2020/7
N2 - BACKGROUND: Finger cuff technologies allow continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure (AP) and cardiac output/index (CO/CI) monitoring.METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing finger cuff-derived AP and CO/CI measurements with invasive measurements in surgical or critically ill patients. We calculated overall random effects model-derived pooled estimates of the mean of the differences and of the percentage error (PE; CO/CI studies) with 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI), pooled 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA), Cochran's Q and I2 (for heterogeneity).RESULTS: The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was 4.2 (2.8 to 5.62) mm Hg with pooled 95%-LOA of -14.0 to 22.5 mm Hg for mean AP (Q=230.4 [P<0.001], I2=91%). For mean AP, the mean of the differences between finger cuff technologies and the reference method was ≤5±8 mm Hg in 9/27 data sets (33%). The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was -0.13 (-0.43 to 0.18) L min-1 with pooled 95%-LOA of -2.56 to 2.23 L min-1 for CO (Q=66.7 [P<0.001], I2=90%) and 0.07 (0.01 to 0.13) L min-1 m-2 with pooled 95%-LOA of -1.20 to 1.15 L min-1 m-2 for CI (Q=5.8 [P=0.326], I2=0%). The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the PE (95%-CI) was 43 (37 to 49)% (Q=48.6 [P<0.001], I2=63%). In 4/19 data sets (21%) the PE was ≤30%, and in 10/19 data sets (53%) it was ≤45%.CONCLUSIONS: Study heterogeneity was high. Several studies showed interchangeability between AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods. However, the pooled results of this meta-analysis indicate that AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods are not interchangeable in surgical or critically ill patients.CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019119266.
AB - BACKGROUND: Finger cuff technologies allow continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure (AP) and cardiac output/index (CO/CI) monitoring.METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing finger cuff-derived AP and CO/CI measurements with invasive measurements in surgical or critically ill patients. We calculated overall random effects model-derived pooled estimates of the mean of the differences and of the percentage error (PE; CO/CI studies) with 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI), pooled 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA), Cochran's Q and I2 (for heterogeneity).RESULTS: The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was 4.2 (2.8 to 5.62) mm Hg with pooled 95%-LOA of -14.0 to 22.5 mm Hg for mean AP (Q=230.4 [P<0.001], I2=91%). For mean AP, the mean of the differences between finger cuff technologies and the reference method was ≤5±8 mm Hg in 9/27 data sets (33%). The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was -0.13 (-0.43 to 0.18) L min-1 with pooled 95%-LOA of -2.56 to 2.23 L min-1 for CO (Q=66.7 [P<0.001], I2=90%) and 0.07 (0.01 to 0.13) L min-1 m-2 with pooled 95%-LOA of -1.20 to 1.15 L min-1 m-2 for CI (Q=5.8 [P=0.326], I2=0%). The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the PE (95%-CI) was 43 (37 to 49)% (Q=48.6 [P<0.001], I2=63%). In 4/19 data sets (21%) the PE was ≤30%, and in 10/19 data sets (53%) it was ≤45%.CONCLUSIONS: Study heterogeneity was high. Several studies showed interchangeability between AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods. However, the pooled results of this meta-analysis indicate that AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods are not interchangeable in surgical or critically ill patients.CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019119266.
KW - Arterial Pressure/physiology
KW - Blood Pressure Determination/instrumentation
KW - Cardiac Output/physiology
KW - Critical Care/methods
KW - Fingers
KW - Humans
KW - Perioperative Care/methods
KW - Pulse Wave Analysis/methods
U2 - 10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.013
DO - 10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.013
M3 - SCORING: Review article
C2 - 32475686
VL - 125
SP - 25
EP - 37
JO - BRIT J ANAESTH
JF - BRIT J ANAESTH
SN - 0007-0912
IS - 1
ER -
