Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2026
Reliability of Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitoring During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Under General Anesthesia.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Schwartz Jonathon, Al-Sadawi Mohammed, Mattimore Daniel, Singh Abhijeet, Kalogeropoulos Andreas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring compared to invasive blood pressure (IBP) measurements during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation under general anesthesia, and to determine whether cardiac rhythm influences NIBP performance.
DESIGN: A retrospective observational cohort study.
SETTING: A tertiary academic medical center.
PARTICIPANTS: Ninety adult patients undergoing endovascular AF ablation between June 2022 and March 2023, with paired NIBP and IBP measurements recorded during both sinus rhythm and AF.
INTERVENTIONS: No interventions were administered for study purposes. All patients received standard general anesthesia and intraoperative monitoring, including radial arterial catheter placement and oscillometric NIBP cuff measurements.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1,158 paired NIBP-IBP measurements were analyzed. NIBP underestimated systolic BP by 3.5 mmHg and overestimated diastolic and mean arterial pressures by 2.3 mmHg and 1.4 mmHg, respectively (all p < 0.05). Within-subject variability was highest for systolic BP (SD = 12.3 mmHg). Cardiac rhythm did not significantly affect agreement, though AF and paced rhythm were associated with increased systolic error in univariate models. Ventilation mode and vasopressor use also influenced discrepancies. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.84 across BP types.
CONCLUSIONS: While rhythm did not significantly alter NIBP reliability, substantial variability-particularly in systolic measurements-limits its interchangeability with IBP during AF ablation. These findings support cautious use of NIBP in high-risk procedural settings and highlight the need for further validation in special populations.
DESIGN: A retrospective observational cohort study.
SETTING: A tertiary academic medical center.
PARTICIPANTS: Ninety adult patients undergoing endovascular AF ablation between June 2022 and March 2023, with paired NIBP and IBP measurements recorded during both sinus rhythm and AF.
INTERVENTIONS: No interventions were administered for study purposes. All patients received standard general anesthesia and intraoperative monitoring, including radial arterial catheter placement and oscillometric NIBP cuff measurements.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1,158 paired NIBP-IBP measurements were analyzed. NIBP underestimated systolic BP by 3.5 mmHg and overestimated diastolic and mean arterial pressures by 2.3 mmHg and 1.4 mmHg, respectively (all p < 0.05). Within-subject variability was highest for systolic BP (SD = 12.3 mmHg). Cardiac rhythm did not significantly affect agreement, though AF and paced rhythm were associated with increased systolic error in univariate models. Ventilation mode and vasopressor use also influenced discrepancies. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.84 across BP types.
CONCLUSIONS: While rhythm did not significantly alter NIBP reliability, substantial variability-particularly in systolic measurements-limits its interchangeability with IBP during AF ablation. These findings support cautious use of NIBP in high-risk procedural settings and highlight the need for further validation in special populations.