European journal of anaesthesiology · 2024
A comparison between invasive and noninvasive measurement of the Hypotension Prediction Index: A post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Rellum Santino R, Kho Eline, Schenk Jimmy, van der Ster Björn J P, Vlaar Alexander P J, Veelo Denise P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and validation studies demonstrate promising hypotension prediction capability by the Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI). Most studies that evaluate HPI derive it from invasive blood pressure readings, but a direct comparison with the noninvasive alternative remains undetermined. Such a comparison could provide valuable insights for clinicians in deciding between invasive and noninvasive monitoring strategies.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluating predictive differences between HPI when obtained through noninvasive versus invasive blood pressure monitoring.
DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study conducted between 2018 and 2020.
SETTING: Single-centre study conducted in an academic hospital in the Netherlands.
PATIENTS: Adult noncardiac surgery patients scheduled for over 2 h long elective procedures. After obtaining informed consent, 91 out of the 105 patients had sufficient data for analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) obtained for HPI predictions between the two datasets. Additionally, difference in time-to-event estimations were calculated.
RESULTS: AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)) results revealed a nonsignificant difference between invasive and noninvasive HPI, with areas of 94.2% (90.5 to 96.8) and 95.3% (90.4 to 98.2), respectively with an estimated difference of 1.1 (-3.9 to 6.1)%; P = 0.673. However, noninvasive HPI demonstrated significantly longer time-to-event estimations for higher HPI values.
CONCLUSION: Noninvasive HPI is reliably accessible to clinicians during noncardiac surgery, showing comparable accuracy in HPI probabilities and the potential for additional response time.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03795831) https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03795831.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluating predictive differences between HPI when obtained through noninvasive versus invasive blood pressure monitoring.
DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study conducted between 2018 and 2020.
SETTING: Single-centre study conducted in an academic hospital in the Netherlands.
PATIENTS: Adult noncardiac surgery patients scheduled for over 2 h long elective procedures. After obtaining informed consent, 91 out of the 105 patients had sufficient data for analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) obtained for HPI predictions between the two datasets. Additionally, difference in time-to-event estimations were calculated.
RESULTS: AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)) results revealed a nonsignificant difference between invasive and noninvasive HPI, with areas of 94.2% (90.5 to 96.8) and 95.3% (90.4 to 98.2), respectively with an estimated difference of 1.1 (-3.9 to 6.1)%; P = 0.673. However, noninvasive HPI demonstrated significantly longer time-to-event estimations for higher HPI values.
CONCLUSION: Noninvasive HPI is reliably accessible to clinicians during noncardiac surgery, showing comparable accuracy in HPI probabilities and the potential for additional response time.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03795831) https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03795831.