Weiss B M, Spahn D R, Keller E, Seifert B, Pasch T
Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland.
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1995 Nov;12(6):555-63.
Continuous non-invasive blood pressure (CNBP) measurements were compared to invasive radial artery pressure recordings in 26 patients with cardiac, vascular and/or pulmonary disease. Patients were studied during general anaesthesia (n = 6), regional anaesthesia (n = 10), or combined technique (n = 10) for abdominal or transurethral surgery. CNBP was obtained from a cuff placed around the upper arm and simultaneously compared to invasive pressure from the ipsilateral radial artery. A CNBP device (7001 Cortronic) used intermittent oscillometric measurement for calibration. Through a cuff continuously inflated to a pressure of 20 mmHg, a microprocessor-controlled electro-pneumatic acquisition system sensed displacements of the brachial artery wall. Amplified, digitally converted, filtered and transformed data were displayed as a continuous pulse pressure waveform and digital pressure values on the screen. The CNBP method functioned without disturbances before surgery in all patients. Intra-operative use of electrocautery or a spontaneous occurrence of warning on the screen repeatedly triggered oscillometric recalibration, hence CNBP measurements were discontinued in nine patients. Coefficients of correlation (r) of all invasive and CNBP pairs (n = 1111) were 0.68, 0.58 and 0.70 for systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressures, respectively. Prediction errors (bias, mean +/- SD) were -13.6 +/- 22.5 mmHg (on average CNBP < invasive pressure) for systolic, +13.0 +/- 12.4 mmHg (CNBP > invasive pressure) for diastolic and +5.0 +/- 13.9 mmHg (CNBP > invasive pressure) for mean CNBP, as compared to radial artery pressure values. Absolute errors (precision) were 25.3 +/- 9.4 mmHg for systolic, 17.4 +/- 4.5 mmHg for diastolic, and 13.9 +/- 4.6 mmHg for mean CNBP. During anaesthesia induction (n = 672) the difference between consecutive measurements (trend of pressure changes) with invasive and CNBP method exceeded 20 mmHg in 90 (13.3%) instances for systolic, in 33 (4.9%) instances for diastolic, and in 45 (6.6%) instances for mean blood pressure. In conclusion, the CNBP method by brachial artery wall displacement failed to measure the blood pressure reliably and to display the trend of pressure changes correctly during anaesthesia induction. In its present form this CNBP method should not replace invasive blood pressure monitoring in high-risk patients neither for anaesthesia induction nor during non-thoracic surgical procedures.
对26例患有心脏、血管和/或肺部疾病的患者,将连续无创血压(CNBP)测量值与有创桡动脉压力记录值进行了比较。在全身麻醉(n = 6)、区域麻醉(n = 10)或联合技术(n = 10)下对患者进行腹部或经尿道手术研究。CNBP通过置于上臂的袖带获得,并同时与同侧桡动脉的有创压力进行比较。一种CNBP设备(7001 Cortronic)采用间歇示波测量法进行校准。通过将袖带持续充气至20 mmHg的压力,一个微处理器控制的电动气动采集系统感测肱动脉壁的位移。放大、数字转换、滤波和变换后的数据以连续脉压波形和数字压力值的形式显示在屏幕上。在所有患者中,CNBP方法在手术前运行无干扰。术中使用电灼或屏幕上自发出现的警告反复触发示波重新校准,因此9例患者的CNBP测量中断。所有有创和CNBP配对(n = 1111)的收缩压、舒张压和平均血压的相关系数(r)分别为0.68、0.58和0.70。与桡动脉压力值相比,收缩压的预测误差(偏差,均值±标准差)为-13.6±22.5 mmHg(平均CNBP<有创压力),舒张压为+13.0±12.4 mmHg(CNBP>有创压力),平均CNBP为+5.0±13.9 mmHg(CNBP>有创压力)。收缩压的绝对误差(精度)为25.3±9.4 mmHg,舒张压为17.4±4.5 mmHg,平均CNBP为13.9±4.6 mmHg。在麻醉诱导期间(n = 672),有创和CNBP方法连续测量值之间的差异(压力变化趋势)在收缩压方面有90例(13.3%)、舒张压方面有33例(4.9%)、平均血压方面有45例(6.6%)超过20 mmHg。总之,通过肱动脉壁位移的CNBP方法在麻醉诱导期间未能可靠地测量血压,也未能正确显示压力变化趋势。就其目前的形式而言,这种CNBP方法在高危患者的麻醉诱导期和非胸科手术过程中均不应取代有创血压监测。