Blood Pressure Measurement Compared Between Oscillometric Blood Pressure Monitoring and Gold Standard Intra-Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring in Adult Shock Resuscitation Patients
4
Issued Date
2022-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
27176428
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85144572928
Journal Title
Journal of Critical and Intensive Care
Volume
13
Issue
3
Start Page
102
End Page
109
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Critical and Intensive Care Vol.13 No.3 (2022) , 102-109
Suggested Citation
Tongyoo S. Blood Pressure Measurement Compared Between Oscillometric Blood Pressure Monitoring and Gold Standard Intra-Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring in Adult Shock Resuscitation Patients. Journal of Critical and Intensive Care Vol.13 No.3 (2022) , 102-109. 109. doi:10.37678/dcybd.2022.3230 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/86227
Title
Blood Pressure Measurement Compared Between Oscillometric Blood Pressure Monitoring and Gold Standard Intra-Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring in Adult Shock Resuscitation Patients
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to investigate blood pressure (BP) measurement compared between oscillometric blood pressure (OBP) monitoring and gold standard intra-arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring in adult shock resuscitation patients Materials and Methods: Patients with circulatory shock who were admitted to the medical intensive care unit were prospectively enrolled during 2018-2019. Demographic and clinical data were recorded, and OBP and IBP data were compared. Results: A total of 82 patients were included. The average age was 66.7 years, and 52.4% were male. The most common cause of shock was septic shock (87.8%). Overall, there was good correlation between OBP and IBP with correlation coefficients of 0.85, 0.85, and 0.78 for systolic BP (SBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and diastolic BP (DBP), respectively. SBP and MAP measured by IBP were higher, while the DBP was lower, than the BP readings derived from the mean of the IBP and OBP monitoring methods. The correlation between methods was lower among patients with a MAP <65 mmHg (r=0.55, 0.33, and 0.47 for SBP, DBP, and MAP, respectively). Conclusions: Among overall patients, BP readings between the two monitoring methods were well correlated; however, SBP and MAP measured by OBP were higher than those measured by IBP in patients with a MAP <65 mmHg. Thus, IBP should be used in adult shock patients with a MAP <65 mmHg to ensure accurate shock diagnosis, and to ensure accurate BP monitoring during shock resuscitation. Clinical trial registered with https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/ (TCTR20220217006), date of registration: 14 February 2022. This is a retrospective registration.