Cited by 43Hemodynamic Monitoring and TherapySepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

Comparison of noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with invasive arterial pressure monitoring in medical ICU patients with septic shock

Riley, Leonard E., Chen, Guoqing John, Latham, Heath E.·2017·Blood Pressure Monitoring

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In the critically ill, the insertion of peripheral arterial catheters to monitor hemodynamics is a low-risk procedure, but carries the potential for complications. This study was designed to compare invasive and noninvasive blood pressure measurements in patients with septic shock in a medical ICU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a prospective observational study of patients admitted with septic shock and a radially inserted peripheral arterial catheter in the medical ICU with 31 adult patients who underwent four pairs of simultaneous noninvasive and invasive blood pressure measurements (124 comparisons), with the invasive blood pressure taken as the gold standard. Agreements between invasive and noninvasive blood pressure methods were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, and clinical significance was determined by the European Society of Hypertension criteria. RESULTS: In all patients, noninvasive systolic (P=0.0385), diastolic (P<0.0001), and mean arterial pressures (P<0.0001) did correlate statistically with invasive measurements; however, all noninvasive pressure measurements did not correlate clinically according to the European Society of Hypertension criteria. CONCLUSION: In our patients admitted to the medical ICU with septic shock, noninvasive blood pressure monitoring did not clinically correlate with invasive blood pressure measurements.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mbp.0000000000000258

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Riley, L. E., Chen, G. J., & Latham, H. E.
Affiliations
University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Riley, Leonard E.
Venue
Blood Pressure Monitoring
Published
2017-08
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
202-207
ISSN
1359-5237 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2604209262
Cited by
43
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Blood Pressure Monitoring (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
non-invasive blood pressure monitoring, invasive arterial pressure monitoring, septic shock, peripheral arterial catheters, medical intensive care unit, hemodynamic monitoring, mean arterial pressure, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, measurement agreement
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Pressure, Catheterization, Critical Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Shock, Septic, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review