Suppr超能文献

危重症患者无创振荡法与有创动脉血压测量的比较:一项前瞻性观察研究的事后分析。

Non-invasive oscillometric versus invasive arterial blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients: A post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Department of Critical Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2020 Jun;57:118-123. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.02.013. Epub 2020 Feb 22.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The aim was to compare non-invasive blood pressure measurements with invasive blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Non-invasive blood pressure was measured via automated brachial cuff oscillometry, and simultaneously the radial arterial catheter-derived measurement was recorded as part of a prospective observational study. Measurements of systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were compared using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses.

RESULTS

Paired measurements of blood pressure were available for 736 patients. Observed mean difference (±SD, 95% limits of agreement) between oscillometrically and invasively measured blood pressure was 0.8 mmHg (±15.7 mmHg, -30.2 to 31.7 mmHg) for SAP, -2.9 mmHg (±11.0 mmHg, -24.5 to 18.6 mmHg) for DAP, and -1.0 mmHg (±10.2 mmHg, -21.0 to 18.9 mmHg) for MAP. Error grid analysis showed that the proportions of measurements in risk zones A to E were 78.3%, 20.7%, 1.0%, 0%, and 0.1% for MAP.

CONCLUSION

Non-invasive blood pressure measurements using brachial cuff oscillometry showed large limits of agreement compared to invasive measurements in critically ill patients. Error grid analysis showed that measurement differences between oscillometry and the arterial catheter would potentially have triggered at least low-risk treatment decisions in one in five patients.

摘要

目的

比较危重患者的无创血压测量与有创血压测量。

方法

使用自动肱动脉袖带振荡法测量无创血压,并同时记录作为前瞻性观察研究一部分的桡动脉导管衍生测量值。使用 Bland-Altman 和误差网格分析比较收缩压 (SAP)、舒张压 (DAP) 和平均动脉压 (MAP) 的测量值。

结果

共有 736 名患者可提供血压配对测量值。振荡法和有创测量法测量血压的观察平均差值 (±SD,95%一致性界限) 为 SAP 为 0.8mmHg (±15.7mmHg,-30.2 至 31.7mmHg),DAP 为-2.9mmHg (±11.0mmHg,-24.5 至 18.6mmHg),MAP 为-1.0mmHg (±10.2mmHg,-21.0 至 18.9mmHg)。误差网格分析显示,MAP 的风险区 A 至 E 的测量比例分别为 78.3%、20.7%、1.0%、0%和 0.1%。

结论

与危重患者的有创测量相比,使用肱动脉袖带振荡法的无创血压测量具有较大的一致性界限。误差网格分析表明,在五分之一的患者中,振荡法和动脉导管之间的测量差异可能会引发至少低风险的治疗决策。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验