The hypotension prediction index versus mean arterial pressure in predicting intraoperative hypotension: A clinical perspective.

BACKGROUND

The hypotension prediction index (HPI) predicts hypotension, with randomised trials showing a significant reduction in hypotension-related metrics. However, the reliability of previous validation studies is debated, and it's unclear if mean arterial pressure (MAP) can be used interchangeably with HPI.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the effectiveness of HPI versus MAP thresholds in predicting intraoperative hypotension, focusing on three clinically relevant metrics: time from alert to event, positive predictive value (PPV), and proportion of missed hypotensive events.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study conducted between 2018 and 2020.

SETTING

Single-centre, academic hospital in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery lasting over two hours. Of the 105 eligible patients, 91 had sufficient data for analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the time-to-hypotensive event intervals predicted by HPI popup alerts (≥85 for ≥40 s) and MAP-alerts (70-75 mmHg). Secondary analyses examined differences between these predictors regarding the PPV and missed event rates, as well as the difference in these metrics between instant HPI-85 alerts and the six MAP-alerts.

RESULTS

The largest time-to-event difference was seen between HPI-85 popup and MAP-70 alerts, with a gain of 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57 to 0.58) min, favouring HPI. Higher MAP thresholds reduced this time difference, but worsened PPV values, with 20.5 (95% CI, 20.3 to 20.6)% at MAP-75 compared to 55.6 (95% CI, 55.4 to 55.8)% for HPI-85 popups. Missed event proportions were similar: between one to three percent. Instant HPI-85 and MAP-72 alerts showed comparable performance, but both had suboptimal PPV values around 30%. However, adding a 40-s time-dependence to MAP's alert definition levelled the differences across the three evaluated metrics, aligning more closely with HPI-85 popup alerts.

CONCLUSIONS

Using HPI-85 popup alerts does not provide additional prediction time over MAP-alerts in the 70 to 75 mmHg range, but they may be preferred due to higher PPV values. Instant HPI-85 and MAP-alerts perform similarly, with MAP-72 being closest, though these alerts more frequently occur regardless of subsequent hypotension with the potential to introduce unnecessary treatment. Adding a 40-s time-dependence to MAP-alerts to match the HPI popup characteristic eliminates distinctions between prediction time and missed events, while maintaining the higher PPV. However, whether 40sec-MAP-alerts are clinically equivalent remains to be determined in prospective clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03795831 on 10 January 2019.