Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:44:50.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Measurement Strategies with Intra-Arterial Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2020

Matthew R. Rebesco Open the ORCID record for Matthew R. Rebesco [Opens in a new window] ,
M. Cornelia Pinkston ,
Nicholas A. Smyrnios  and
Stacy N. Weisberg
Matthew R. Rebesco*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MassachusettsUSA
M. Cornelia Pinkston
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WashingtonUSA
Nicholas A. Smyrnios
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MassachusettsUSA
Stacy N. Weisberg
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MassachusettsUSA
*
Correspondence: Matthew R. Rebesco, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, Massachusetts01655USA, E-mail: Matthew.Rebesco@umassmemorial.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

It is difficult to obtain an accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement, especially in the prehospital environment. It is not known fully how various BP measurement techniques differ from one another.

Study Objective:

The study hypothesized that there are differences in the accuracy of various non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement strategies as compared to the gold standard of intra-arterial (IA) measurement.

Methods:

The study enrolled adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with radial IA catheters placed to measure radial intra-arterial blood pressure (RIBP) as a part of their standard care at a large, urban, tertiary-care Level I trauma center. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was taken by three different NIBP techniques (oscillometric, auscultated, and palpated) and compared to RIBP measurements. Data were analyzed using the paired t-test with dependent samples to detect differences between RIBP measurements and each NIBP method. The primary outcome was the difference in RIBP and NIBP measurement. There was also a predetermined subgroup analysis based on gender, body mass index (BMI), primary diagnosis requiring IA line placement, and current vasoactive medication use.

Results:

Forty-four patients were enrolled to detect a predetermined clinically significant difference of 5mmHg in SBP. The patient population was 63.6% male and 36.4% female with an average age of 58.4 years old. The most common primary diagnoses were septic shock (47.7%), stroke (13.6%), and increased intracranial pressure (ICP; 13.6%). Most patients were receiving some form of sedation (63.4%), while 50.0% were receiving vasopressor medication and 31.8% were receiving anti-hypertensive medication. When compared to RIBP values, only the palpated SBP values had a clinically significant difference (9.88mmHg less than RIBP; P < .001). When compared to RIBP, the oscillometric and auscultated SBP readings showed statistically but not clinically significant lower values. The palpated method also showed a clinically significant lower SBP reading than the oscillometric method (5.48mmHg; P < .001) and the auscultated method (5.06mmHg; P < .001). There was no significant difference between the oscillometric and auscultated methods (0.42mmHg; P = .73).

Conclusion:

Overall, NIBPs significantly under-estimated RIBP measurements. Palpated BP measurements were consistently lower than RIBP, which was statistically and clinically significant. These results raise concern about the accuracy of palpated BP and its pervasive use in prehospital care. The data also suggested that auscultated and oscillometric BP may provide similar measurements.

Keywords

arterial pressureblood pressureblood pressure monitorsphygmomanometer
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 516 - 523
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Polito, CC, Isakov, A, Yancy, AH II, et al. Prehospital recognition of severe sepsis: development and validation of a novel EMS screening tool. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(9):1119–1125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reisner, A, Chen, X, Kumar, K, et al. Prehospital heart rate and blood pressure increase the positive predictive value of the Glasgow Coma Scale for high-mortality traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2014;31(10):906–913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruijns, SR, Guly, HR, Bouamra, O, et al. The value of the difference between ED and prehospital vital signs in predicting outcome in trauma. Emerg Med J. 2014;31(7):579–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitzan, M, Slotki, I, and Shavit, L. More accurate systolic blood pressure measurement is required for improved hypertension management: a perspective. Med Devices (Auckl). 2017;10:157–163.Google ScholarPubMed
Bur, A, Hirschl, MM, Herkner, H, et al. Accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure measurement according to the relation between cuff size and upper-arm circumference in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(2):371–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozone, S, Sato, M, Takayashiki, A, et al. Blood pressure measurements over thin and thick sleeves in the frail elderly. Blood Press Monit. 2017;23(1):9–11.Google Scholar
Song, S, Lee, J, Chee, Y, et al. Does the accuracy of blood pressure measurement correlate with hearing loss of the observer? Blood Press Monit. 2014;19(1):14–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakhal, K, Martin, M, Ehrmann, S, et al. Non-invasive blood pressure monitoring with an oscillometric brachial cuff: impact of arrhythmia. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017;32(4):707–715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakhal, K, Macq, C, Ehrmann, S, et al. Noninvasive monitoring of blood pressure in the critically ill: reliability according to the cuff site (arm, thigh, or ankle). Crit Care Med. 2012;40(4):1207–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anast, N, Olejniczak, M, Ingrande, J, et al. The impact of blood pressure cuff location on the accuracy of noninvasive blood pressure measurements in obese patients: an observational study. Can J Anesth. 2016;63(3):298–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, M, Zhang, X, Chen, F, et al. Effects of room environment and nursing experience on clinical blood pressure measurement: an observational study. Blood Press Monit. 2017;22(2):79–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinh, MM, Oliver, M, Bein, K, et al. Level of agreement between prehospital and emergency department vital signs in trauma patients. Emerg Med Australas. 2013;25(5):457–463.Google ScholarPubMed
Jones, S, Simpson, H, Ahmed, H. A comparison of two methods of blood pressure measurement. Br J Nurs. 2006;15(17):948–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kallem, RR, Meyers, KE, Cucchiara, AJ, et al. Blood pressure variability of two ambulatory blood pressure monitors. Blood Press Monit. 2014;19(2):98–102.Google ScholarPubMed
Rinfre, F, Cloutier, L, L’Archeveque, H, et al. The gap between manual and automated office blood pressure measurements results at a hypertension clinic. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33(5):653–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, N, Hogg, LA, Corfield, AR, et al. Comparison of non-invasive and invasive blood pressure in aeromedical care. Anaesthesia. 2012;67(12):1343–1347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wildner, G, Pauker, N, Archan, S, et al. Arterial line in prehospital emergency settings – a feasibility study in four physician-staffed emergency medical systems. Resuscitation. 2011;82(9):1198–1201.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Bergen, FH, Weatherhead, DS, Treloar, AE, et al. Comparison of indirect and direct methods of measuring arterial blood pressure. Circulation. 1954;10(4):481–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muecke, S, Bersten, A, Plummer, J. Validation of arterial blood pressures observed from the patient monitor; a tool for prehospital research. J Clin Monit Comput. 2010;24(2):93–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribezzo, S, Spina, E, Di Bartolomeo, S, et al. Noninvasive techniques for blood pressure measurement are not a reliable alternative to direct measurement: a randomized crossover trial in ICU. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014(353628):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, LE, Chen, GJ, Latham, HE. Comparison of noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with invasive arterial pressure monitoring in medical ICU patients with septic shock. Blood Press Monit. 2017;22(4):202–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skirton, H, Chamberlain, W, Lawson, C, et al. A systematic review of variability and reliability of manual and automated blood pressure readings. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(5-6):602–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drawz, P. Clinical implications of different blood pressure measurement techniques. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2017;19(7):54.Google ScholarPubMed
Myers, MG. Replacing manual sphygmomanometers with automated blood pressure measurement in routine clinical practice. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2014;41(1):46–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulze, MB, Kroke, A, Saracci, R, et al. The effect of differences in measurement procedure on the comparability of blood pressure estimates in multicenter studies. Blood Press Monit. 2002;7(2):95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolonen, H, Koponen, P, Naska, A, et al. Challenges in standardization of blood pressure measurement at the population level. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mancia, G, Ferrari, A, Gregorini, L, et al. Blood pressure and heart rate variabilities in normotensive and hypertensive human beings. Circ Res. 1983;53(1):96–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parati, G, Ochoa, JE, Salvi, P, et al. Prognostic value of blood pressure variability and average blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(Suppl 2):S312–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Rebesco et al. supplementary material

Rebesco et al. supplementary material

Download Rebesco et al. supplementary material(File)
File 50.2 KB