Young C C, Mark J B, White W, DeBree A, Vender J S, Fleming A
Department of Anesthesiology, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, NC, USA.
J Clin Monit. 1995 Jul;11(4):245-52. doi: 10.1007/BF01617519.
A continuous, noninvasive device for blood pressure measurement using pulse transit time has been recently introduced. We compared blood pressure measurement determined using this device with simultaneous invasive blood pressure measurements in 35 patients undergoing general endotracheal anesthesia. Data were analyzed for accuracy and tracking ability of the noninvasive technique, and for frequency of unavailable pressure measurements by each method. A total of 25,133 measurements of systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) by each method were collected for comparison from 35 patients. Accuracy was expressed by reporting mean bias (invasive pressure minus noninvasive pressure) and limits of agreement between the two measurements. After correction for the offset found when measuring invasive and oscillometric methods of arterial pressure measurement, the mean biases for systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures by the pulse wave method were -0.37 mm Hg, -0.01 mm Hg, and -0.05 mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.001). The limits of agreement were: -29.0 to 28.2 mm Hg, -14.9 to 14.8 mm Hg, and -19.1 to 19.0 mm Hg, respectively (95% confidence intervals). When blood pressure measured invasively changed over time by more than 10 mm Hg, the noninvasive technique accurately tracked the direction of change 67% of the time. During the entire study, 3.2% of the invasive measurements were unavailable and 12.9% of the noninvasive measurements were unavailable. The continuous noninvasive monitoring technique is not of sufficient accuracy to replace direct invasive measurement of arterial blood pressure, owing to relatively wide limits of agreement between the two methods.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
最近推出了一种使用脉搏传输时间进行血压测量的连续无创设备。我们将使用该设备测定的血压与35例接受全身气管内麻醉患者同时进行的有创血压测量结果进行了比较。分析了无创技术的准确性、追踪能力以及每种方法无法获得血压测量值的频率。从35例患者中收集了每种方法对收缩压、舒张压和平均动脉压(MAP)的总共25133次测量值进行比较。准确性通过报告平均偏差(有创血压减去无创血压)以及两次测量之间的一致性界限来表示。在对动脉压有创测量和示波测量方法之间发现的偏移进行校正后,脉搏波法测量的收缩压、舒张压和平均压的平均偏差分别为-0.37 mmHg、-0.01 mmHg和-0.05 mmHg(p<0.001)。一致性界限分别为:-29.0至28.2 mmHg、-14.9至14.8 mmHg和-19.1至19.0 mmHg(95%置信区间)。当有创测量的血压随时间变化超过10 mmHg时,无创技术能在67%的时间内准确追踪变化方向。在整个研究过程中,3.2%的有创测量值无法获得,12.9%的无创测量值无法获得。由于两种方法之间的一致性界限相对较宽,这种连续无创监测技术的准确性不足以取代动脉血压的直接有创测量。(摘要截断于250字)