Schramm Christoph, Baat Lisa, Plaschke Konstanze
Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Blood Press Monit. 2011 Dec;16(6):270-6. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e32834d777f.
To assess the role of continuous noninvasive arterial pressure (CNAP) in elderly, high-risk patients with pronounced variation in arterial pressure (AP) under analgesic sedation.
Twenty-nine patients were analyzed while undergoing elective transfemoral aortic valve implantation procedures during periods of normal blood pressure, hypotension, and hypertension with standard invasive arterial pressures (IAP). Systolic, diastolic, and mean IAP were compared with those obtained by CNAP. Data were analyzed to determine precision (i.e. measurement error) and accuracy (i.e. systematic error) during different periods of AP for agreement of the two methods. In addition, we compared the two methods during intervals of functional cardiac arrests (rapid pacing) in terms of amplitude and frequency of rapid changes in AP.
No significant differences in precision were observed between CNAP measurements and IAP measurements. CNAP accuracy was -8.3*, 6.4, and 0.6 mmHg in normotensive, -20.5*, 4.4, and -5.5 mmHg in hypertensive, and -4.8, 9.4, and 4.5 mmHg in hypotensive conditions (*P<0.05). The frequency of AP pairs with a difference of ± 15 mmHg (limits of agreement) or less was 59.5, 71.7, and 76.5% in normotensive, 33.1, 72.9, and 66.9% in hypertensive, and 59.5, 71.7, and 76.5% in hypotensive periods for systolic, diastolic, and mean AP, respectively. Rapid pacing intervals showed a significant difference in systolic measurements; whereas the differences between CNAP and IAP for diastolic and mean AP were minimal.
The agreement between the two techniques used in this study of elderly high-risk patients under analgesic sedation is similar to that found in studies performed under general anesthesia. The best agreement was detected in hypotensive periods.
评估连续无创动脉压(CNAP)在镇痛镇静下动脉压(AP)显著波动的老年高危患者中的作用。
对29例患者在择期经股主动脉瓣植入手术期间,于正常血压、低血压和高血压状态下采用标准有创动脉压(IAP)进行分析。将收缩压、舒张压和平均IAP与CNAP所测值进行比较。分析数据以确定两种方法在不同AP时期的精密度(即测量误差)和准确度(即系统误差)。此外,我们在功能性心脏骤停(快速起搏)期间比较了两种方法在AP快速变化的幅度和频率方面的差异。
CNAP测量值与IAP测量值在精密度上未观察到显著差异。在正常血压状态下,CNAP准确度分别为-8.3*、6.4和0.6 mmHg;高血压状态下为-20.5*、4.4和-5.5 mmHg;低血压状态下为-4.8、9.4和4.5 mmHg(*P<0.05)。收缩压、舒张压和平均AP差值在±15 mmHg(一致性界限)或更小的AP配对频率,在正常血压时期分别为59.5%、71.7%和76.5%;高血压时期分别为33.1%、72.9%和66.9%;低血压时期分别为59.5%、71.7%和76.5%。快速起搏间期在收缩压测量上显示出显著差异;而CNAP与IAP在舒张压和平均AP上的差异最小。
本研究中用于镇痛镇静下老年高危患者的两种技术之间的一致性与全身麻醉下的研究结果相似。在低血压时期检测到最佳一致性。