Accuracy and Trending Ability of Blood Pressure and Cardiac Index Measured by ClearSight System in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Comparison of direct intra-arterial pressure and ClearSight finger cuff arterial pressure measurements in elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the agreement between direct intra-arterial pressure and ClearSight finger cuff arterial pressure measurements in elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted at Hitachi General Hospital, Japan, involving 30 patients aged 65 years and older who underwent TAVR under general anesthesia. Intra-arterial pressure and finger cuff arterial pressure measurements were recorded for 30 min after valve deployment. Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot analysis, and error grid analysis were used to assess the concordance between the two methods. Multiple regression analysis was performed to explore potential confounding factors affecting the agreement.

RESULTS

The bias and precision of ClearSight measurements were -4.88 ± 15.46 (mmHg) for SBP, 4.73 ± 8.95 (mmHg) for mean, and 9.53 ± 9.01 (mmHg) for DBP. The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated acceptable agreement between intra-arterial pressure and finger cuff arterial pressure measurements. The four-quadrant plot analysis showed good trend-tracking ability, and the error grid analysis revealed that most of the observed values fell into the no-risk category. The mean BP match ratio and SBP match ratio were influenced by several factors such as age, BSA, ejection fraction, valve size, and gender.

CONCLUSION

The ClearSight finger cuff arterial pressure measurement showed good agreement with direct intra-arterial pressure in elderly patients undergoing TAVR. However, factors such as age, BSA, ejection fraction, valve size, and gender may influence the agreement between the two methods.

Comparison of invasive and non-invasive measurements of cardiac index and systemic vascular resistance in living-donor liver transplantation: a prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND

Based on the controversy surrounding pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) in surgical patients, we investigated the interchangeability of cardiac index (CI) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) measurements between ClearSight™ and PAC during living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

This prospective study included consecutively selected LDLT patients. ClearSight™-based CI and SVR measurements were compared with those from PAC at seven LDLT-stage time points. ClearSight™-based systolic (SAP), mean (MAP), and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures were also compared with those from femoral arterial catheterization (FAC). For the comparison and analysis of ClearSight™ and the reference method, Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze accuracy while polar and four-quadrant plots were used to analyze the trending ability.

RESULTS

From 27 patients, 189 pairs of ClearSight™ and reference values were analyzed. The CI and SVR performance errors (PEs) exhibited poor accuracy between the two methods (51.52 and 51.73%, respectively) in the Bland-Altman analysis. CI and SVR also exhibited unacceptable trending abilities in both the polar and four-quadrant plot analyses. SAP, MAP, and DAP PEs between the two methods displayed favorable accuracy (24.28, 21.18, and 26.26%, respectively). SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable trending ability in the four-quadrant plot between the two methods, but not in the polar plot analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

During LDLT, CI and SVR demonstrated poor interchangeability, while SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable interchangeability between ClearSight™ and FAC.

Patent landscape review of non-invasive medical sensors for continuous monitoring of blood pressure and their validation in critical care practice

Objectives

Continuous non-invasive monitoring of blood pressure is one of the main factors in ensuring the safety of the patient's condition in anesthesiology, intensive care, surgery, and other areas of medicine. The purpose of this work was to analyze the current patent situation and identify directions and trends in the application of non-invasive medical sensors for continuous blood pressure monitoring, with a focus on clinical experience in critical care and validation thereof.

Materials and methods

The research results reflect data collected up to September 30, 2022. Patent databases, Google Scholar, the Lens database, Pubmed, Scopus databases were used to search for patent and clinical information.

Results

An analysis of the patent landscape indicates a significant increase in interest in the development of non-invasive devices for continuous blood pressure monitoring and their implementation in medical practice, especially in the last 10 years. The key players in the intellectual property market are the following companies: Cnsystems Medizintechnik; Sotera Wireless INC; Tensys Medical INC; Healthstats Int Pte LTD; Edwards Lifesciences Corp, among others. Systematization of data from validation and clinical studies in critical care practice on patients with various pathological conditions and ages, including children and newborns, revealed that a number of non-invasive medical sensor technologies are quite accurate and comparable to the "gold standard" continuous invasive blood pressure monitoring. They are approved by the FDA for medical applications and certified according to ISO 81060-2, ISO 81060-3, and ISO/TS 81060-5. Unregistered and uncertified medical sensors require further clinical trials.

Conclusion

Non-invasive medical sensors for continuous blood pressure monitoring do not replace, but complement, existing methods of regular blood pressure measurement, and it is expected to see more of these technologies broadly implemented in the practice in the near future.

Noninvasive cardiac output measurement is inaccurate in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background

Noninvasive cardiac output (CO) measured using ClearSight™ eliminates the need for intra-arterial catheter insertion. The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy of non-invasive CO measurement in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).

Methods

Twenty-eight patients undergoing elective transcatheter aortic valve implantation were prospectively enrolled in this study. The CO was simultaneously measured twice before and twice after valve deployment (total of four times) per patient, and the CO was compared between the ClearSight (CO_ClearSight) system and the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) thermodilution (CO_TD) method as a reference. The Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare the percentage errors between the methods.

Results

A total of 112 paired data points were obtained. The percentage error between the CO_ClearSight and CO_TD was 43.1%. The paired datasets were divided into the following groups according to the systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI): low (< 1,200 dyne s/cm⁵/m²) and normal (1,200–2,500 dyne s/cm⁵/m²). The percentage errors were 44.9% and 49.4%, respectively. The discrepancy of CO between CO_ClearSight and CO_TD was not significantly correlated with SVRI (r = −0.06, P < 0.001). The polar plot analysis showed the trending ability of the CO_ClearSight after artificial valve deployment was 51.1% which below the acceptable cut-off (92%).

Conclusions

The accuracy and the trending ability of the ClearSight CO measurements were not acceptable in patients with severe AS. Therefore, the ClearSight system is not interchangeable with the PAC thermodilution for determining CO in this population.

Continuous Noninvasive Arterial Pressure Monitoring for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the present study, which was conducted in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, was to compare continuous noninvasive arterial pressure measured with the ClearSight device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) with invasive radial artery pressure used as the reference method. The authors hypothesized that the ClearSight device is an accurate, precise, safe, and efficient method for arterial blood pressure measurement comparable with an invasive radial arterial line.

DESIGN

The study included the retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients scheduled for elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve (Edwards Lifesciences) at a single tertiary academic hospital, who underwent monitoring with both the ClearSight device and an invasive radial arterial pressure line. The patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement from October to December 2019.

SETTING

Single tertiary academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 20 patients, with 2,243 unique blood pressure data points.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A statistically significant correlation between the invasive radial arterial pressure line and the ClearSight device was observed for systolic blood pressure (correlation coefficient 0.86; p < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (correlation coefficient 0.56; p < 0.001), and mean arterial pressure (correlation coefficient 0.78; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure between the two methods. Results for systolic blood pressure between the arterial line and ClearSight device were as follows: bias = 9.8 ± 10.1, percentage bias = 7.6%, and mean error = 15.8%. Results for diastolic blood pressure between the arterial line and ClearSight device were as follows: bias = -5.9 ± 7.8, percentage bias = 10.7%, and mean error = 28.4%. Results for mean arterial pressure between the arterial line and ClearSight device were as follows: bias = 0.3 ± 7.4, percentage bias = 0.4%, and mean error = 18.3%. The concordance rates of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure were 100%, 95.1%, and 98.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy, agreement, and precision of the ClearSight device were convincing for mean arterial pressure, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure for patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement.