Finger cuff versus invasive and noninvasive arterial pressure measurement in pregnant patients with obesity

BACKGROUND

Pregnant patients with obesity may have compromised noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement. We assessed the accuracy and trending ability of the ClearSight™ finger cuff (FC) with invasive arterial monitoring (INV) and arm NIBP, in obese patients having cesarean delivery.

METHODS

Participants were aged ≥18 years, ≥34 weeks gestation, and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg m-2. FC, INV, and NIBP measurements were obtained across 5-min intervals. The primary outcome was agreement of FC measurements with those of the reference standard INV, using modified Bland-Altman plots. Secondary outcomes included comparisons between FC and NIBP and NIBP versus INV, with four-quadrant plots performed to report discordance rates and evaluate trending ability.

RESULTS

Twenty-three participants had a median (IQR) BMI of 45 kg m-2 (44-48). When comparing FC and INV the mean bias (SD, 95% limits of agreement) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 16 mmHg (17, -17.3 to 49.3 mmHg), for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) -0.2 mmHg (10.5, -20.7 to 20.3), and for mean arterial pressure (MAP) 5.2 mmHg (11.1, -16.6 to 27.0 mmHg). Discordance occurred in 54 (26%) pairs for SBP, 41 (23%) for DBP, and 41 (21.7%) for MAP. Error grid analysis showed 92.1% of SBP readings in Zone A (no-risk zone). When comparing NIBP and INV, the mean bias (95% limits of agreement) for SBP was 13.0 mmHg (16.7, -19.7 to 29.3), for DBP 5.9 mmHg (11.9, -17.4 to 42.0), and for MAP 8.2 mmHg (11.9, -15.2 to 31.6). Discordance occurred in SBP (84 of 209, 40.2%), DBP (74 of 187, 39.6%), and MAP (63 of 191, 33.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The FC and NIBP techniques were not adequately in agreement with INV. Trending capability was better for FC than NIBP. Clinically important differences may occur in the setting of the perfusion-dependent fetus.

Continuous Non-Invasive Arterial Pressure Assessment during Surgery to Improve Outcome

Blood pressure (BP) is one of the most important variables evaluated during almost every medical examination. Most national anesthesiology societies recommend BP monitoring at least once every 5 min in anesthetized subjects undergoing surgical procedures. In most cases, BP is monitored non-invasively using oscillometric cuffs. Although the risk of arterial cannulation is not very high, the invasive BP monitoring is usually indicated only in the case of high-risk patients or in complex surgical procedures. However, recent evidence points out that when using intermittent BP monitoring short periods of hypotension may be overlooked. In addition, large datasets have demonstrated that even short periods of low BP (or their cumulative duration) may have a detrimental impact on the development of postoperative outcome including increased risk of acute kidney or myocardial injury development. Recently marketed continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring tools may help us to recognize the BP fluctuation without the associated burden of arterial cannulation filling the gap between intermittent non-invasive cuff and continuous invasive arterial pressure. Among others, several novel devices based either on volume clamp/vascular unloading method or on applanation tonometry are nowadays available. Moreover, several near-future smart technologies may lead to better hypotension recognition or even prediction potentially improving our ability to maintain BP stability throughout the anesthesia or surgical procedure. In this review, novel or emerging technologies of non-invasive continuous blood pressure assessment and their potential to improve postoperative outcome are discussed.