Influence of noninvasive central blood pressure devices for afterload monitoring with aortic velocity-pressure Loop in anesthetized patients. Issue 4 (August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Leve, Charlotte; Hong, Alex; Millasseau, Sandrine; Joachim, Jona; Touchard, Cyril; Mateo, Joaquim; Serrano, José; Mebazaa, Alexandre; Gayat, Etienne; Vallee, Fabrice
• Is Part Of: Blood pressure monitoring. Volume 25:Issue 4(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-08
• Subjects: blood pressure monitoring -- cardiac afterload -- general anesthesia -- hemodynamic -- tonometry -- velocity pressure loop; Blood pressure -- Measurement -- Periodicals; Blood Pressure Determination -- Periodicals; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory -- Periodicals; Blood Pressure Monitors -- Periodicals; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 612.140287
• DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000445
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1359-5237

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Global afterload angle (GALA) is a parameter derived from velocity-pressure loop (VP Loop), for continuous assessment of cardiac afterload in the operating room. It has been validated with invasive measure of central pressure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of noninvasive VP Loop obtained with central pressure measured with two different noninvasive tonometers. Methods: A prospective, observational, monocentric study was conducted in 51 patients under general anesthesia. Invasive central pressure (cPINV ) was measured with a fulfilled intravascular catheter, and noninvasive central pressure signals were obtained with two applanation tonometry devices: radial artery tonometry (cPSHYG : Sphygmocor tonometer) and carotid tonometry (cPCOMP : Complior tonometer). Three VP Loops were built: VP LoopINV, VP LoopSPHYG and VP LoopCOMP . Patients were separated according to cardiovascular risk factors. Results: In the 51 patients under general anesthesia, cPSHYG was adequately obtained in 48 patients (89%) but, compared to cPINV, SBP was underestimated (−4 ± 6 mmHg, P < 0.0001), augmentation index (AIXSPHYG ) and a GALASPHYG were overestimated (+13 ± 19%, P = 0.0077 and +4 ± 8°, P = 0.0024, respectively) with large limit of agreement (LOA) (−21 to 47% and −13 to 21° for AIXSPHYG and GALASPHYG, respectively). With the Complior, the failure rate of measurement for cPCOMP was 41%. SBP was similar (3 ± 17 mmHg, P = 0.32), AIXCOMP was underestimated (−11 ± 19%, P = 0.0046) and GALACOMP was similar but with large LOA (−50 to 26% and −20 to 18° for AIXCOMP and GALACOMP, respectively). Conclusion: In anesthetized patient, the reliability of noninvasive central pressure monitoring by tonometry seems too limited to monitor cardiac afterload with VP Loop.