Araghi Ali, Bander Joseph J, Guzman Jorge A
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Crit Care. 2006;10(2):R64. doi: 10.1186/cc4896.
Blood pressure measurements frequently guide management in critical care. Direct readings, commonly from a major artery, are considered to be the gold standard. Because arterial cannulation is associated with risks, alternative noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements are routinely used. However, the accuracy of NIBP determinations in overweight patients in the outpatient setting is variable, and little is known about critically ill patients. This prospective, observational study was performed to compare direct intra-arterial blood pressure (IABP) with NIBP measurements obtained using auscultatory and oscillometric methods in overweight patients admitted to our medical intensive care unit.
Adult critically ill patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 or greater and a functional arterial line (assessed using the rapid flush test) were enrolled in the study. IABP measurements were compared with those obtained noninvasively. A calibrated aneroid manometer (auscultatory technique) with arm cuffs compatible with arm sizes and a NIBP monitor (oscillometric technique) were used for NIBP measurements. Agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.
Fifty-four patients (23 males) with a mean (+/- standard error) age of 57 +/- 3 years were studied. The mean BMI was 34.0 +/- 1.4 kg/m2. Mean arm circumference was 32 +/- 0.6 cm. IABP readings were obtained from the radial artery in all patients. Only eight patients were receiving vasoactive medications. Mean overall biases for the auscultatory and oscillometric techniques were 4.1 +/- 1.9 and -8.0 +/- 1.7 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.0001), with wide limits of agreement. The overestimation of blood pressure using the auscultatory technique was more important in patients with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or greater. In hypertensive patients both NIBP methods underestimated blood pressure as determined using direct IABP measurement.
Oscillometric blood pressure measurements underestimated IABP readings regardless of patient BMI. Auscultatory measurements were also inaccurate, tending to underestimate systolic blood pressure and overestimate mean arterial and diastolic blood pressure. NIBP can be inaccurate among overweight critically ill patients and lead to erroneous interpretations of blood pressure.
血压测量常用于指导重症监护中的治疗管理。通常从主要动脉获取的直接读数被视为金标准。由于动脉置管存在风险,常规使用替代的无创血压(NIBP)测量方法。然而,门诊超重患者中NIBP测定的准确性存在差异,而对于重症患者了解甚少。本前瞻性观察性研究旨在比较直接动脉内血压(IABP)与使用听诊法和示波法在入住我院医学重症监护病房的超重患者中获得的NIBP测量值。
纳入体重指数(BMI)为25kg/m²或更高且有功能性动脉导管(使用快速冲洗试验评估)的成年重症患者。将IABP测量值与无创获得的测量值进行比较。使用与手臂尺寸相匹配的袖带的校准无液压力计(听诊技术)和NIBP监测仪(示波技术)进行NIBP测量。使用Bland-Altman分析评估方法之间的一致性。
研究了54例患者(23例男性),平均(±标准误差)年龄为57±3岁。平均BMI为34.0±1.4kg/m²。平均臂围为32±0.6cm。所有患者均从桡动脉获取IABP读数。只有8例患者接受血管活性药物治疗。听诊法和示波法的平均总体偏差分别为4.1±1.9和-8.0±1.7mmHg(P<0.0001),一致性界限较宽。BMI为30kg/m²或更高的患者中,使用听诊法高估血压的情况更为明显。在高血压患者中,两种NIBP方法均低估了直接IABP测量确定的血压。
无论患者BMI如何,示波法血压测量均低估了IABP读数。听诊测量也不准确,倾向于低估收缩压,高估平均动脉压和舒张压。超重重症患者中NIBP可能不准确,并导致对血压的错误解读。