Estimation of pulse pressure variation and cardiac output in patients having major abdominal surgery: a comparison between a mobile application for snapshot pulse wave analysis and invasive pulse wave analysis

The Internet, Apps, and the Anesthesiologist

Modern anesthesia continues to be impacted in new and unforeseen ways by digital technology. Combining portability and versatility, mobile applications or "apps" provide a multitude of ways to enhance anesthetic and peri-operative care. Research suggests that the uptake of apps into anesthetic practice is becoming increasingly routine, especially amongst younger anesthetists brought up in the digital age. Despite this enthusiasm, there remains no consensus on how apps are safely and efficiently integrated into anesthetic practice. This review summarizes the most popular forms of app usage in anesthesia currently and explores the challenges and opportunities inherent in implementing app use in anesthesia, with an emphasis on a practical approach for the modern anesthetist.

Evaluation of a novel optical smartphone blood pressure application: a method comparison study against invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring in intensive care unit patients

Background

Arterial hypertension is a worldwide public health problem. While it is currently diagnosed and monitored non-invasively using the oscillometric method, having the ability to measure blood pressure (BP) using a smartphone application could provide more widespread access to hypertension screening and monitoring. In this observational study in intensive care unit patients, we compared blood pressure values obtained using a new optical smartphone application (OptiBP™; test method) with arterial BP values obtained using a radial artery catheter (reference method) in order to help validate the technology.

Methods

We simultaneously measured three BP values every hour for five consecutive hours on two consecutive days using both the smartphone and arterial methods. Bland–Altman and error grid analyses were used for agreement analysis between both approaches. The performance of the smartphone application was investigated using the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) definitions, which require the bias ± SD between two technologies to be below 5 ± 8 mmHg.

Results

Among the 30 recruited patients, 22 patients had adequate OptiBP™ values and were thus analyzed. In the other 8 patients, no BP could be measured due to inadequate signals. The Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean of the differences ± SD between both methods of 0.9 ± 7 mmHg for mean arterial pressure (MAP), 0.2 ± 14 mmHg for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), and 1.1 ± 6 mmHg for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP). Error grid analysis demonstrated that the proportions of measurement pairs in risk zones A to E were 88.8% (no risk), 10% (low risk), 1% (moderate risk), 0% (significant risk), and 0% (dangerous risk) for MAP and 88.4%, 8.6%, 3%, 0%, 0%, respectively, for SAP.

Conclusions

This method comparison study revealed good agreement between BP values obtained using the OptiBP™ and those done invasively. The OptiBP™ fulfills the AAMI/ISO universal standards for MAP and DAP (but not SAP). Error grid showed that the most measurements (≥ 97%) were in risk zones A and B.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04728477

Evaluation of a new smartphone optical blood pressure application (OptiBP™) in the post-anesthesia care unit: a method comparison study against the non-invasive automatic oscillometric brachial cuff as the reference method

We compared blood pressure (BP) values obtained with a new optical smartphone application (OptiBP™) with BP values obtained using a non-invasive automatic oscillometric brachial cuff (reference method) during the first 2 h of surveillance in a post-anesthesia care unit in patients after non-cardiac surgery. Three simultaneous BP measurements of both methods were recorded every 30 min over a 2-h period. The agreement between measurements was investigated using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses. We also evaluated the performance of the OptiBP™ using ISO81060-2:2018 standards which requires the mean of the differences ± standard deviation (SD) between both methods to be less than 5 mmHg ± 8 mmHg. Of 120 patients enrolled, 101 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean of the differences ± SD between the test and reference methods of + 1 mmHg ± 7 mmHg for mean arterial pressure (MAP), + 2 mmHg ± 11 mmHg for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), and + 1 mmHg ± 8 mmHg for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP). Error grid analysis showed that the proportions of measurement pairs in risk zones A to E were 90.3% (no risk), 9.7% (low risk), 0% (moderate risk), 0% (significant risk), 0% (dangerous risk) for MAP and 89.9%, 9.1%, 1%, 0%, 0% for SAP. We observed a good agreement between BP values obtained by the OptiBP™ system and BP values obtained with the reference method. The OptiBP™ system fulfilled the AAMI validation requirements for MAP and DAP and error grid analysis indicated that the vast majority of measurement pairs (≥ 99%) were in risk zones A and B.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04262323.

Non-Invasive Continuous Measurement of Haemodynamic Parameters-Clinical Utility

The evaluation and monitoring of patients’ haemodynamic parameters are essential in everyday clinical practice. The application of continuous, non-invasive measurement methods is a relatively recent solution. CNAP, ClearSight and many other technologies have been introduced to the market. The use of these techniques for assessing patient eligibility before cardiac procedures, as well as for intraoperative monitoring is currently being widely investigated. Their numerous advantages, including the simplicity of application, time- and cost-effectiveness, and the limited risk of infection, could enforce their further development and potential utility. However, some limitations and contradictions should also be discussed. The aim of this paper is to briefly describe the new findings, give practical examples of the clinical utility of these methods, compare them with invasive techniques, and review the literature on this subject.