Effect of Systemic Vascular Resistance on the Reliability of Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cardiac Surgery

Continuous non-invasive vs. invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring during neuroradiological procedure: a comparative, prospective, monocentric, observational study

BACKGROUND

In the perioperative setting, the most accurate way to continuously measure arterial blood pressure (ABP) is using an arterial catheter. Surrogate methods such as finger cuff have been developed to allow non-invasive measurements and are increasingly used, but need further evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and clinical concordance between two devices for the measurement of ABP during neuroradiological procedure.

METHODS

This is a prospective, monocentric, observational study. All consecutive patients undergoing a neuroradiological procedure were eligible. Patients who needed arterial catheter for blood pressure measurement were included. During neuroradiological procedure, ABP (systolic, mean and diatolic blood pressure) was measured with two different technologies: radial artery catheter and Nexfin. Bland-Altman and error grid analyses were performed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical concordance between devices.

RESULTS

From March 2022 to November 2022, we included 50 patients, mostly ASA 3 (60%) and required a cerebral embolization (94%) under general anaesthesia (96%). Error grid analysis showed that 99% of non-invasive ABP measures obtained with the Nexfin were located in the risk zone A or B. However, 65.7% of hypertension events and 41% of hypotensive events were respectively not detected by Nexfin. Compared to the artery catheter, a significant relationship was found for SAP (r2 = 0.78) and MAP (r2 = 0.80) with the Nexfin (p < 0.001). Bias and limits of agreement (LOA) were respectively 9.6 mmHg (- 15.6 to 34.8 mmHg) and - 0.8 mmHg (- 17.2 to 15.6 mmHg), for SAP and MAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Nexfin is not strictly interchangeable with artery catheter for ABP measuring. Further studies are needed to define its clinical use during neuroradiological procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, registration number: NCT05283824.

Effect of systemic vascular resistance on the agreement between stroke volume by non-invasive pulse wave analysis and Doppler ultrasound in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Stroke volume can be estimated beat-to-beat and non-invasively by pulse wave analysis (PWA). However, its reliability has been questioned during marked alterations in systemic vascular resistance (SVR). We studied the effect of SVR on the agreement between stroke volume by PWA and Doppler ultrasound during reductions in stroke volume in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

In a previous study we simultaneously measured stroke volume by PWA (SVPWA) and suprasternal Doppler ultrasound (SVUS). We exposed 16 healthy volunteers to lower body negative pressure (LBNP) to reduce stroke volume in combination with isometric hand grip to elevate SVR. LBNP was increased by 20 mmHg every 6 minutes from 0 to 80 mmHg, or until hemodynamic decompensation. The agreement between SVPWA and SVUS was examined using Bland-Altman analysis with mixed regression. Within-subject limits of agreement (LOA) was calculated from the residual standard deviation. SVRUS was calculated from SVUS. We allowed for a sloped bias line by introducing the mean of the methods and SVRUS as explanatory variables to examine whether the agreement was dependent on the magnitude of stroke volume and SVRUS.

RESULTS

Bias ± limits of agreement (LOA) was 27.0 ± 30.1 mL. The within-subject LOA was ±11.1 mL. The within-subject percentage error was 14.6%. The difference between methods decreased with higher means of the methods (-0.15 mL/mL, confidence interval (CI): -0.19 to -0.11, P<0.001). The difference between methods increased with higher SVRUS (0.60 mL/mmHg × min × L-1, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.72, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

PWA overestimated stroke volume compared to Doppler ultrasound during reductions in stroke volume and elevated SVR in healthy volunteers. The agreement between SVPWA and SVUS decreased during increases in SVR. This is relevant in settings where a high level of reliability is required.

Effects of phenylephrine on systemic and cerebral circulations in humans: a systematic review with mechanistic explanations

We conducted a systematic review of the literature reporting phenylephrine-induced changes in blood pressure, cardiac output, cerebral blood flow and cerebral tissue oxygen saturation as measured by near-infrared spectroscopy in humans. We used the proportion change of the group mean values reported by the original studies in our analysis. Phenylephrine elevates blood pressure whilst concurrently inducing a reduction in cardiac output. Furthermore, despite increasing cerebral blood flow, it decreases cerebral tissue oxygen saturation. The extent of phenylephrine's influence on cardiac output (r = -0.54 and p = 0.09 in awake humans; r = -0.55 and p = 0.007 in anaesthetised humans), cerebral blood flow (r = 0.65 and p = 0.002 in awake humans; r = 0.80 and p = 0.003 in anaesthetised humans) and cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (r = -0.72 and p = 0.03 in awake humans; r = -0.24 and p = 0.48 in anaesthetised humans) appears closely linked to the magnitude of phenylephrine-induced blood pressure changes. When comparing the effects of phenylephrine in awake and anaesthetised humans, we found no evidence of a significant difference in cardiac output, cerebral blood flow or cerebral tissue oxygen saturation. There was also no evidence of a significant difference in effect on systemic and cerebral circulations whether phenylephrine was given by bolus or infusion. We explore the underlying mechanisms driving the phenylephrine-induced cardiac output reduction, cerebral blood flow increase and cerebral tissue oxygen saturation decrease. Individualised treatment approaches, close monitoring and consideration of potential risks and benefits remain vital to the safe and effective use of phenylephrine in acute care.

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.

Continuous Noninvasive Blood Pressure Measurement With "ClearSight" Compared to Standard Intermittent Blood Pressure Measurement in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease. Are Potential Differences Influenced by Phenylephrine or Dobutamine?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the agreement between continuous noninvasive blood pressure measurement with the ClearSight system (cNIBP-CS) and standard intermittent noninvasive blood pressure measurement (iNIBP) in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Additionally, the influence of vasoactive medication on potential measurement differences was assessed.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

At a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four patients with PAD undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the lower limbs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Continuous noninvasive blood pressures were measured with the "ClearSight" system and compared to standard iNIBPs. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean bias of 13 mmHg (±15) between cNIBP-CS and iNIBP, with 95% limits of agreement (LOA) ranging from -17 to 42 mmHg. When comparing both medication groups, a similar mean bias was found for phenylephrine and dobutamine (12 mmHg [±13] and 13 mmHg [±13], respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this study, in patients with PAD, cNIBP-CS showed an underestimation of blood pressure compared to iNIBP in phenylephrine- and dobutamine-treated patients. Compared to previous studies, a larger bias and wider 95% LOA were found.

Changes in stroke volume induced by lung recruitment maneuver can predict fluid responsiveness during intraoperative lung-protective ventilation in prone position

Background

The present study aimed to evaluate the reliability of hemodynamic changes induced by lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) in predicting stroke volume (SV) increase after fluid loading (FL) in prone position.

Methods

Thirty patients undergoing spine surgery in prone position were enrolled. Lung-protective ventilation (tidal volume, 6–7 mL/kg; positive end-expiratory pressure, 5 cmH₂O) was provided to all patients. LRM (30 cmH₂O for 30 s) was performed. Hemodynamic variables including mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate, SV, SV variation (SVV), and pulse pressure variation (PPV) were simultaneously recorded before, during, and at 5 min after LRM and after FL (250 mL in 10 min). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to evaluate the predictability of SVV, PPV, and SV decrease by LRM (ΔSV_LRM) for SV responders (SV increase after FL > 10%). The gray zone approach was applied for ΔSV_LRM.

Results

Areas under the curve (AUCs) for ΔSV_LRM, SVV, and PPV to predict SV responders were 0.778 (95% confidence interval: 0.590–0.909), 0.563 (0.371–0.743), and 0.502 (0.315–0.689), respectively. The optimal threshold for ΔSV_LRM was 30% (sensitivity, 92.3%; specificity, 70.6%). With the gray zone approach, the inconclusive values ranged 25 to 75% for ΔSV_LRM (including 50% of enrolled patients).

Conclusion

In prone position, LRM-induced SV decrease predicted SV increase after FL with higher reliability than traditional dynamic indices. On the other hand, considering the relatively large gray zone in this study, future research is needed to further improve the clinical significance.

Trial registration

UMIN Clinical Trial Registry UMIN000027966. Registered 28th June 2017.

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.