The ClearSight System for Postoperative Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring After Carotid Endarterectomy: A Validation Study

Comparison of the ClearSight™ finger cuff monitor versus invasive arterial blood pressure measurement in elective cardiac surgery patients: a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

To determine the acceptability of the ClearSight™ system (Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Irvine, CA, USA) for continuous blood pressure monitoring during elective cardiac surgery compared with arterial catheterization.

METHODS

We enrolled 30 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery in a prospective observational study. Blood pressure measurements were recorded every 10 sec intraoperatively. We determined agreement based on the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) recommendations. Statistical analysis included fixed bias (difference of measurements between methods), percentage error (accuracy between ClearSight measurement and expected measurement from arterial line), and interchangeability (ability to substitute ClearSight monitor without effecting overall outcome of analysis). We used a paired samples t test to compare the time required for placing each monitor.

RESULTS

We found fixed bias in the differences between the ClearSight monitor and invasive arterial blood pressure measurement in systolic blood pressure (SBP; mean difference, 8.7; P < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; mean difference, -2.2; P < 0.001), but not in mean arterial pressure (MAP; mean difference, -0.5; P < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots showed that the means of the limits of agreement were greater than 5 mm Hg for SBP, DBP, and MAP. The percentage errors for SBP, DBP, and MAP were lower than the cutoff we calculated from the invasive arterial blood pressure measurements. Average interchangeability rates were 38% for SBP, 50% for DBP, and 50% for MAP. Placement of the ClearSight finger cuff was significantly faster compared with arterial catheterization (mean [standard deviation], 1.7 [0.6] min vs 5.6 [4.1] min; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective observational study, we did not find the ClearSight system to be an acceptable substitute for invasive arterial blood pressure measurement in elective cardiac surgery patients according to AAMI guidelines. Nevertheless, based on statistical standards, there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT05825937 ); first submitted 11 April 2023.

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.

Feasibility and Accuracy of Noninvasive Continuous Arterial Pressure Monitoring during Transcatheter Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Introduction: Transcatheter atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is still carried out with continuous invasive radial arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring in many centers. Continuous noninvasive blood pressure (CNBP) measurement using the volume-clamp method is a noninvasive alternative method used in ICU. No data on CNBP reliability are available in the electrophysiology lab during AF ablation, where rhythm variations are common. Background: The objective of the present study was to compare continuous noninvasive arterial pressure measured with the ClearSight device (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) with invasive radial artery pressure used as the reference method during AF ablation. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 55 consecutive patients (age 62 ± 11 years, 80% male) undergoing transcatheter AF ablation (62% paroxysmal, 38% persistent) at our center. Standard of care IBP monitoring via a radial cannula and a contralateral noninvasive finger volume-clamp CNBP measurement device were positioned simultaneously in all patients for the entire procedure. Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze the agreement between the two techniques. Results: A total of 1219 paired measurements for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure were obtained in 55 subjects, with a mean (SD) of 22 (9) measurements per patient. The mean bias (SD) was −12.97 (13.89) mmHg for systolic pressure (level of agreement −14.24–40.20; correlation coefficient 0.84), −1.85 (8.52) mmHg for diastolic pressure (level of agreement −18.54–14.84; correlation coefficient 0.77) and 2.31 (8.75) mmHg for mean pressure (level of agreement −14.84–19.46; correlation coefficient 0.85). Conclusion: In patients undergoing AF ablation, CNBP monitoring with the ClearSight device showed acceptable agreement with IBP monitoring. Larger studies are needed to confirm the potential clinical implications of continuous noninvasive BP monitoring during AF ablation.