Validation of Continuous Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitoring Using Error Grid Analysis. (20th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Juri, Takashi; Suehiro, Koichi; Kanematsu, Rieko; Takahashi, Kanae; Fujimoto, Yohei; Tanaka, Katsuaki; Mori, Takashi
• Is Part Of: Anesthesia & analgesia. Volume 134:Number 4(2022)
• Page Start: 773
• Page End: 780
• Publication Date: 2022-01-20
• Subjects: Anesthesiology -- Periodicals; Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Analgesia; Analgesics; Anesthesiology -- Periodicals; 617.9605
• DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005882
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-2999

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: Error grid analysis was recently proposed to compare blood pressure obtained by 2 measurement methods. This study aimed to compare continuous noninvasive blood pressure (CNBP) with invasive blood pressure (IBP) using the error grid analysis and investigate the confounding risk factors attributable to the differences between CNBP and IBP. METHODS: Sixty adult patients undergoing general anesthesia were prospectively enrolled. Simultaneous comparative data regarding CNBP and IBP were collected. The Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to compare CNBP and IBP for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and mean blood pressure (MBP; acceptable accuracy: mean bias <5 mm Hg; standard deviation <8 mm Hg). The clinical relevance of the discrepancies between CNBP and IBP was evaluated by the error grid analysis, which classifies the differences into 5 zones from "no risk" (A) to "dangerous risk" (E). Additionally, an ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between the risk zones for MBP, classified by the error grid analysis and covariates of interest. RESULTS: A total of 10, 663 pairs of CNBP/IBP were finally analyzed. The Bland-Altman analysis showed an acceptable accuracy with a bias of −3.3 ± 5.6 mm Hg for MBP but a poor accuracy with a bias of 5.4 ± 10.5 mm Hg for SBP. The error grid analysis showed the proportions of zones A to E as 96.7%, 3.2%, 0.1%, 0%, and 0% for SBP, respectively, and 72.0%, 27.9%, 0.1%, 0%, and 0% for MBP, respectively. The finger cuff missed 23.9% of epochs when SBP <90 mm Hg and 55.3% of epochs when MBP <65 mm Hg. The ordinal logistic regression analysis revealed that older age (adjusted odds ratio for decade: 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15–2.08; P = .004) and length of time from the initiation of finger cuff inflation (adjusted odds ratio for 60 minutes: 1.40, 95% CI, 1.13–1.73; P = .002) were significant factors of being in a more dangerous zone of the error grid. CONCLUSIONS: The error grid analysis revealed the larger clinical discrepancy between CNBP and IBP in MBP compared with that in SBP. Old age and longer finger cuff inflation time were significant factors of being in a more dangerous zone of the error grid, which could affect the hemodynamic management during surgery. Abstract :