Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia · 2025
Comparison of PetMAP digital and Mindray wrist oscillometric blood pressure measurements with invasive blood pressure in anaesthetized bonobos (Pan paniscus).
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bucknell Philippa, Hillen Florence, Dobbs Phillipa, Ashfield Samantha, White Kate
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement of the PetMAP noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) device with digital cuff and the Mindray NIBP device with wrist cuff with invasive blood pressure (IBP) in bonobos.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study (non-blinded or -randomized).
ANIMALS: A group of 12 bonobos aged 5-44 years undergoing anaesthesia for enclosure movement and health checks.
METHODS: Systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP) and mean (MAP) arterial pressure measurements were recorded simultaneously at 5-minute intervals using the NIBP devices and IBP via anterior tibial artery cannulation. Modified Bland-Altman and adapted error grid analyses assessed agreement between IBP and NIBP and the clinical implications of any biases respectively. A 95% limit of agreement (LOA) estimated the possible magnitude of sampling error. Pearson r correlations between IBP and NIBP measurements were calculated. A p < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: IBP ranges were SAP 50-137 mmHg, MAP 32-85 mmHg and DAP 20-69 mmHg. Biases with the PetMAP were -6.8 mmHg for SAP (LOA -41.3 to 27.7 mmHg), -7.2 mmHg for MAP (LOA -30.7 to 16.3 mmHg) and -3.1 mmHg for DAP (LOA -25.5 to 19.3 mmHg) from 84 PetMAP-IBP paired measurements. Correlation coefficients were 0.6 for SAP and DAP and 0.7 for MAP. Whilst 70% of MAP values were clinically acceptable, 13% demonstrated unrecognised hypotension. The Mindray demonstrated biases of -25.3 mmHg for SAP (LOA -69.5 to 18.9 mmHg), -17.5 mmHg for MAP (LOA -51.4 to 16.5 mmHg) and -14.4 mmHg for DAP (LOA -42.2 to 13.5 mmHg) from 95 Mindray-IBP paired measurements. Correlation coefficients were 0.7 for all. Only 45% of MAP values were clinically acceptable and 26% demonstrated unrecognised hypotension.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Whilst the PetMAP agreed more closely with IBP, neither device met all the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine validation criteria, and neither should be used to identify hypotension.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical study (non-blinded or -randomized).
ANIMALS: A group of 12 bonobos aged 5-44 years undergoing anaesthesia for enclosure movement and health checks.
METHODS: Systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP) and mean (MAP) arterial pressure measurements were recorded simultaneously at 5-minute intervals using the NIBP devices and IBP via anterior tibial artery cannulation. Modified Bland-Altman and adapted error grid analyses assessed agreement between IBP and NIBP and the clinical implications of any biases respectively. A 95% limit of agreement (LOA) estimated the possible magnitude of sampling error. Pearson r correlations between IBP and NIBP measurements were calculated. A p < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: IBP ranges were SAP 50-137 mmHg, MAP 32-85 mmHg and DAP 20-69 mmHg. Biases with the PetMAP were -6.8 mmHg for SAP (LOA -41.3 to 27.7 mmHg), -7.2 mmHg for MAP (LOA -30.7 to 16.3 mmHg) and -3.1 mmHg for DAP (LOA -25.5 to 19.3 mmHg) from 84 PetMAP-IBP paired measurements. Correlation coefficients were 0.6 for SAP and DAP and 0.7 for MAP. Whilst 70% of MAP values were clinically acceptable, 13% demonstrated unrecognised hypotension. The Mindray demonstrated biases of -25.3 mmHg for SAP (LOA -69.5 to 18.9 mmHg), -17.5 mmHg for MAP (LOA -51.4 to 16.5 mmHg) and -14.4 mmHg for DAP (LOA -42.2 to 13.5 mmHg) from 95 Mindray-IBP paired measurements. Correlation coefficients were 0.7 for all. Only 45% of MAP values were clinically acceptable and 26% demonstrated unrecognised hypotension.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Whilst the PetMAP agreed more closely with IBP, neither device met all the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine validation criteria, and neither should be used to identify hypotension.