Suppr超能文献

两种自动无创动脉压测量设备的相对准确性。

The relative accuracies of two automated noninvasive arterial pressure measurement devices.

作者信息

Gorback M S, Quill T J, Lavine M L

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710.

出版信息

J Clin Monit. 1991 Jan;7(1):13-22. doi: 10.1007/BF01617893.

Abstract

We compared the accuracies of two types of noninvasive blood pressure devices. Thirty-two patients requiring an intraarterial catheter for anesthetic management underwent simultaneous monitoring with Dinamap 1846SX and Ohmeda Finapres 3700 devices. For the first 10 minutes of recording, new Dinamap determinations were performed every 60 seconds; subsequent recordings were made at 3-minute intervals. Data were obtained at the time of new Dinamap readings, and twice between new readings to approximate the real-time performance of the two monitors. We defined superior accuracy as a statistically significant difference in mean absolute error greater than 5 mm Hg. With these criteria, pooled data from all patients revealed no difference in performance, even in real time. Pooled data can be misleading since there was a significant amount of variation in accuracy for both monitors. Therefore, we used nonparametric analysis to determine how many individual patients were monitored better by either device. When we compared only data from new Dinamap readings, the Finapres monitor showed superior performance for systolic readings in 13 patients, versus 6 patients for the Dinamap (P less than 0.05, chi-square test). Similar analysis for diastolic and mean pressure performance did not reach statistical significance. However, in real time, the Finapres unit monitored more patients more accurately for systolic (14 Finapres versus 3 Dinamap), diastolic (11 Finapres versus 3 Dinamap), and mean (10 Finapres versus 3 Dinamap) pressure determinations. The magnitude of these differences were, however, less dramatic than expected. This was probably due to stabilization of arterial pressure during the anesthetic, which minimized the error due to intermittent sampling. We conclude that continuous Finapres readings and new Dinamap determinations are equally accurate for diastolic and mean arterial pressures. The accuracy of Finapres appears to be slightly superior for systolic pressure. The intermittent sampling of oscillometric devices compromises their performance relative to the Finapres in many, but not all, cases.

摘要

我们比较了两种无创血压设备的准确性。32名因麻醉管理需要动脉内导管的患者同时使用Dinamap 1846SX和Ohmeda Finapres 3700设备进行监测。在记录的前10分钟,每60秒进行一次新的Dinamap测定;随后的记录每隔3分钟进行一次。在进行新的Dinamap读数时获取数据,并在新读数之间获取两次数据,以近似两台监测仪的实时性能。我们将更高的准确性定义为平均绝对误差的统计学显著差异大于5 mmHg。根据这些标准,所有患者的汇总数据显示,即使在实时情况下,两台设备的性能也没有差异。汇总数据可能会产生误导,因为两台监测仪的准确性都存在大量差异。因此,我们使用非参数分析来确定每种设备对多少个体患者的监测效果更好。当我们仅比较新的Dinamap读数数据时,Finapres监测仪在13名患者的收缩压读数方面表现更优,而Dinamap为6名患者(P小于0.05,卡方检验)。对舒张压和平均压性能的类似分析未达到统计学显著性。然而,在实时情况下,Finapres设备在收缩压(14名使用Finapres,3名使用Dinamap)、舒张压(11名使用Finapres,3名使用Dinamap)和平均压(10名使用Finapres,3名使用Dinamap)测定中,能更准确地监测更多患者。然而,这些差异的程度不如预期的那么显著。这可能是由于麻醉期间动脉压的稳定,将间歇性采样导致的误差降至最低。我们得出结论,对于舒张压和平均动脉压,Finapres的连续读数和新的Dinamap测定同样准确。Finapres在收缩压方面的准确性似乎略高。在许多但并非所有情况下,示波法设备的间歇性采样相对于Finapres会损害其性能。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验