6533b85dfe1ef96bd12be780
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Automatic algorithm for monitoring systolic pressure variation and difference in pulse pressure.
Yoshihisa FujitaVolker HartwichKimiko FukuiPeter M. SchumacherDaniel LeibundgutLuzius B. HiltebrandG. PestelAndrea KurzDaniel InderbitzinAndreas Vogtsubject
AdultMaleFluid responsivenessBlood PressureAutomationMonitoring IntraoperativeAbdomenMedicineHumansIn patientPulseAgedObserver VariationBlood Volumebusiness.industryAirway ResistanceLimits of agreementReproducibility of ResultsMiddle AgedReference StandardsPulse pressureAnesthesiology and Pain MedicineBlood pressureData Interpretation StatisticalRespiratory MechanicsFemalebusinessAlgorithmAlgorithmsdescription
BACKGROUND: Difference in pulse pressure (dPP) reliably predicts fluid responsiveness in patients. We have developed a respiratory variation (RV) monitoring device (RV monitor), which continuously records both airway pressure and arterial blood pressure (ABP). We compared the RV monitor measurements with manual dPP measurements. METHODS: ABP and airway pressure (PAW) from 24 patients were recorded. Data were fed to the RV monitor to calculate dPP and systolic pressure variation in two different ways: (a) considering both ABP and PAW (RV algorithm) and (b) ABP only (RV(slim) algorithm). Additionally, ABP and PAW were recorded intraoperatively in 10-min intervals for later calculation of dPP by manual assessment. Interobserver variability was determined. Manual dPP assessments were used for comparison with automated measurements. To estimate the importance of the PAW signal, RV(slim) measurements were compared with RV measurements. RESULTS: For the 24 patients, 174 measurements (6-10 per patient) were recorded. Six observers assessed dPP manually in the first 8 patients (10-min interval, 53 measurements); no interobserver variability occurred using a computer-assisted method. Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable bias and limits of agreement of the 2 automated methods compared with the manual method (RV: -0.33% +/- 8.72% and RV(slim): -1.74% +/- 7.97%). The difference between RV measurements and RV(slim) measurements is small (bias -1.05%, limits of agreement 5.67%). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of the automated device are comparable with measurements obtained by human observers, who use a computer-assisted method. The importance of the PAW signal is questionable.
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2009-06-01 | Anesthesia and analgesia |