From the Department of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (MF, JMM, LB, PH, KK, CV, BS), CNSystems Medizintechnik, Graz, Austria (DF, KL), and Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, Ohio, USA (BS).
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021 Jun 1;38(6):616-624. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001469.
The effect of different methods for data sampling and data processing on the results of comparative statistical analyses in method comparison studies of continuous arterial blood pressure (AP) monitoring systems remains unknown.
We sought to investigate the effect of different methods for data sampling and data processing on the results of statistical analyses in method comparison studies of continuous AP monitoring systems.
Prospective observational study.
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, from April to October 2019.
49 patients scheduled for neurosurgery with AP measurement using a radial artery catheter.
We assessed the agreement between continuous noninvasive finger cuff-derived (CNAP Monitor 500; CNSystems Medizintechnik, Graz, Austria) and invasive AP measurements in a prospective method comparison study in patients having neurosurgery using all beat-to-beat AP measurements (Methodall), 10-s averages (Methodavg), one 30-min period of 10-s averages (Method30), Method30 with additional offset subtraction (Method30off), and 10 30-s periods without (Methodiso) or with (Methodiso-zero) application of the zero zone. The agreement was analysed using Bland-Altman and error grid analysis.
For mean AP, the mean of the differences (95% limits of agreement) was 9.0 (-12.9 to 30.9) mmHg for Methodall, 9.2 (-12.5 to 30.9) mmHg for Methodavg, 6.5 (-9.3 to 22.2) mmHg for Method30, 0.5 (-9.5 to 10.5) mmHg for Method30off, 4.9 (-6.0 to 15.7) mmHg for Methodiso, and 3.4 (-5.9 to 12.7) mmHg for Methodiso-zero. Similar trends were found for systolic and diastolic AP. Results of error grid analysis were also influenced by using different methods for data sampling and data processing.
Data sampling and data processing substantially impact the results of comparative statistics in method comparison studies of continuous AP monitoring systems. Depending on the method used for data sampling and data processing, the performance of an AP test method may be considered clinically acceptable or unacceptable.
不同的数据采样和数据处理方法对连续动脉血压(AP)监测系统比较统计分析结果的影响尚不清楚。
我们旨在研究不同的数据采样和数据处理方法对连续 AP 监测系统比较研究中统计分析结果的影响。
前瞻性观察性研究。
德国汉堡大学医学中心,2019 年 4 月至 10 月。
49 例拟行神经外科手术并使用桡动脉导管测量 AP 的患者。
我们评估了在一项前瞻性方法比较研究中,使用连续非侵入性指套式袖带(CNAP Monitor 500;CNSystems Medizintechnik,格拉茨,奥地利)和侵入性 AP 测量方法,对所有有节奏的 AP 测量(Methodall)、10 秒平均值(Methodavg)、一个 30 分钟的 10 秒平均值(Method30)、Method30 加额外的偏移量减法(Method30off)和没有(Methodiso)或有(Methodiso-zero)应用零区的 10 个 30 秒周期进行比较,结果的一致性。使用 Bland-Altman 和误差网格分析来分析一致性。
对于平均 AP,差异的平均值(95%一致性区间)为 Methodall 为 9.0(-12.9 至 30.9)mmHg,Methodavg 为 9.2(-12.5 至 30.9)mmHg,Method30 为 6.5(-9.3 至 22.2)mmHg,Method30off 为 0.5(-9.5 至 10.5)mmHg,Methodiso 为 4.9(-6.0 至 15.7)mmHg,Methodiso-zero 为 3.4(-5.9 至 12.7)mmHg。收缩压和舒张压的趋势也相似。误差网格分析的结果也受到数据采样和数据处理方法的影响。
数据采样和数据处理方法对连续 AP 监测系统比较研究中的比较统计结果有很大影响。根据数据采样和数据处理方法的不同,AP 测试方法的性能可能被认为是临床可接受的或不可接受的。