Finger cuff versus invasive and noninvasive arterial pressure measurement in pregnant patients with obesity
Authors' conclusion
The FC and NIBP techniques were not adequately in agreement with INV. Trending capability was better for FC than NIBP.
Study context
- Population
- Pregnant patients aged ≥18 years, ≥34 weeks gestation, body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg m-2, having cesarean deliverymedian BMI 45 kg m-2
- Participants
- 23 patients
- Comparison
- ClearSight finger cuff and arm noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) vs invasive arterial monitoring
- Outcome
- Agreement of FC with INV measurements (modified Bland-Altman plots)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
FC vs INV agreement
Mean bias systolic blood pressure (SBP)
16 mmHg
95% limits of agreement CI −17.3 to 49.3
SD 17
Mean bias diastolic blood pressure (DBP)
−0.2 mmHg
95% limits of agreement CI −20.7 to 20.3
SD 10.5
Mean bias mean arterial pressure (MAP)
5.2 mmHg
95% limits of agreement CI −16.6 to 27.0
SD 11.1
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Estimate |
|---|---|
| NIBP vs INV agreementNIBP vs INV · 16.7 | mean bias SBP 13.0 mmHg (95% limits of agreement CI −19.7 to 29.3) |
| NIBP vs INV agreementNIBP vs INV · 11.9 | mean bias DBP 5.9 mmHg (95% limits of agreement CI −17.4 to 42.0) |
| NIBP vs INV agreementNIBP vs INV · 11.9 | mean bias MAP 8.2 mmHg (95% limits of agreement CI −15.2 to 31.6) |
Finger cuff (FC) vs INV discordance (four-quadrant) and error grid
- Discordant pairs SBP
- 54 (26%)
- Discordant pairs DBP
- 41 (23%)
- Discordant pairs MAP
- 41 (21.7%)
- SBP readings in Zone A (no-risk zone)
- 92.1%
NIBP vs INV discordance (four-quadrant)
- Discordance SBP
- 84 of 209, 40.2%
- Discordance DBP
- 74 of 187, 39.6%
- Discordance MAP
- 63 of 191, 33.0%
Original publication
Finger cuff versus invasive and noninvasive arterial pressure measurement in pregnant patients with obesity. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. Published 5 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →