We have located links that may give you full text access.
Error grid analysis for risk management in the difference between invasive and noninvasive blood pressure measurements.
Journal of Anesthesia 2021 April
PURPOSE: Invasive arterial blood pressure (IAP) and noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements are both common methods. Recently, a new method of error grid analysis was proposed to compare blood pressure obtained using two measurement methods. This study aimed to compare IAP and NIBP measurements using the error grid analysis and investigate potential confounding factors affecting the discrepancies between IAP and NIBP.
METHODS: Adult patients who underwent general anesthesia in the supine position with both IAP and NIBP measurements were retrospectively investigated. The error grid analyses were performed to compare IAP and NIBP. In the error grid analysis, the clinical relevance of the discrepancies between IAP and NIBP was evaluated and classified into five zones from no risk (A) to dangerous risk (E).
RESULTS: Overall, data of 1934 IAP/NIBP measurement pairs from 100 patients were collected. The error grid analysis revealed that the proportions of zones A-E for systolic blood pressure were 96.4%, 3.5%, 0.05%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. In contrast, the proportions for mean blood pressure were 82.5%, 16.7%, 0.8%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. The multiple regression analysis revealed that continuous phenylephrine administration (p = 0.016) and age (p = 0.044) were the significant factors of an increased clinical risk of the differences in mean blood pressure.
CONCLUSIONS: The error grid analysis indicated that the differences between IAP and NIBP for mean blood pressure were not clinically acceptable and had the risk of leading to unnecessary treatments. Continuous phenylephrine administration and age were the significant factors of an increased clinical risk of the discrepancies between IAP and NIBP.
METHODS: Adult patients who underwent general anesthesia in the supine position with both IAP and NIBP measurements were retrospectively investigated. The error grid analyses were performed to compare IAP and NIBP. In the error grid analysis, the clinical relevance of the discrepancies between IAP and NIBP was evaluated and classified into five zones from no risk (A) to dangerous risk (E).
RESULTS: Overall, data of 1934 IAP/NIBP measurement pairs from 100 patients were collected. The error grid analysis revealed that the proportions of zones A-E for systolic blood pressure were 96.4%, 3.5%, 0.05%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. In contrast, the proportions for mean blood pressure were 82.5%, 16.7%, 0.8%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. The multiple regression analysis revealed that continuous phenylephrine administration (p = 0.016) and age (p = 0.044) were the significant factors of an increased clinical risk of the differences in mean blood pressure.
CONCLUSIONS: The error grid analysis indicated that the differences between IAP and NIBP for mean blood pressure were not clinically acceptable and had the risk of leading to unnecessary treatments. Continuous phenylephrine administration and age were the significant factors of an increased clinical risk of the discrepancies between IAP and NIBP.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app