4.6 Article

The Reliability of Continuous Noninvasive Finger Blood Pressure Measurement in Critically III Children

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 814-821

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e318194f401

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION: Continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure can be measured in finger arteries using an inflatable finger cuff (FINAP) with a special device and has proven to be feasible and reliable in adults. We studied prototype pediatric finger cuffs and pediatric software to compare this blood pressure measurement with mtraarterially measured blood pressure (IAP) in critically ill children. METHODS: We included sedated and mechanically ventilated children admitted to our pediatric intensive care unit. We performed simultaneous arterial blood pressure measurements during a relatively stable hemodynamic period and compared FINAP, IAP, and the noninvasive blood pressure oscillometric technique. We also compared IAP to a reconstruction of brachial pressure from finger pressure. RESULTS: Thirty-five children between 2 and 22 kg body weight were included. In total, 152 attempts to record a FINAP pressure were performed of which 4.6% were unsuccessful. When comparing FINAP to IAP, bias was -16.2, -7.7, and -10.2 mm Hg for systolic arterial blood pressure, diastolic arterial blood pressure, and mean arterial blood pressure. Limits of agreement (LOA) were respectively 26.1%, 30.1%, and 22.6%. When reconstruction of brachial pressure from finger pressure was compared to IAP, these results were -11.8, 0.6, and -0.9 mm Hg for bias and 21.7%, 8.9%, and 8.9% for LOA. When noninvasive blood pressure oscillometric technique was compared to IAP, the results were: -6.8, -0.9, and -3.8 mm Hg for bias and 18.2%, 38.6%, and 22.7% for LOA. CONCLUSION: Beta type continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure monitoring using a finger cuff with brachial arterial waveform reconstruction seems reliable in hemodynanucally stable critically ill children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据