Cited by 22Hemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies

Comparison between invasive and noninvasive blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients receiving inotropes

Kaur, Babandeep, Kaur, Sukhpal, Yaddanapudi, Lakshmi N., Singh, Neena V.·2019·Blood Pressure Monitoring

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare invasive and noninvasive monitoring of blood pressure (BP) in patients on inotropes. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This study was carried out in the ICU of a tertiary care centre. The design was comparative analytical. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-six adult patients receiving inotropes with invasive arterial BP monitoring were studied. Systolic and diastolic BPs were recorded simultaneously using invasive (radial arterial cannula) and noninvasive (Philips Intellivue MP-60 oscillometric monitor attached to the opposite arm) methods every 30 min. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Agreement (precision) between both the methods was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. A difference of more than 10 mmHg was considered clinically unacceptable. Linear regression of difference with invasive BP and analysis of variance with Tukey's correction of difference with the number of inotropes were carried out. RESULTS: Overall, 1400 pairs of systolic and diastolic BP measurements were obtained. Systolic and diastolic pressures showed a difference of 2.3±16.9 and 0.7±10.6 mmHg, respectively. In all, 93.4% of systolic and 98.6% of diastolic pressure measurements were within the limits of agreement. The difference was clinically acceptable in 54.2% of measurements of systolic and 74.1% of diastolic measurements. Both systolic and diastolic BP differences were correlated with the number of inotropes that the patient was receiving. CONCLUSION: Noninvasive BP measurement using an oscilllometric monitor (Philips Intellivue MP-60) is not a reliable alternative to invasive intra-arterial measurement in patients receiving inotropes. The observed difference increased with the number of inotropes that the patient was receiving.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mbp.0000000000000358

Cites

20 of 20 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
Kaur, B., Kaur, S., Yaddanapudi, L. N., & Singh, N. V.
Affiliations
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (IN)
Corresponding author
  • Kaur, Babandeep
  • Kaur, Sukhpal
Venue
Blood Pressure Monitoring
Published
2019-02
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
24-29
ISSN
1359-5237 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2905077461
Cited by
22
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Blood Pressure Monitoring (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Keywords
invasive blood pressure monitoring, non-invasive blood pressure measurement, oscillometric blood pressure monitor, inotropic agents, critically ill patients, arterial cannula, measurement agreement, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, hemodynamic monitoring
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Blood Pressure Monitors, Critical Illness

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