Long-term pressure monitoring with arterial applanation tonometry: a non-invasive alternative during clinical intervention?

School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University, London, UK.
Technology and health care: official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine (Impact Factor: 0.64). 01/2008; 16(3):183-93.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Arterial tonometry is a non-invasive technique for continuous registration of arterial pressure waveforms. This study aims to assess tonometric blood pressure recording (TBP) as an alternative for invasive long-term bedside monitoring. A prospective study was set up where patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention were subjected to both invasive (IBP) and non-invasive (TBP) blood pressure monitoring during the entire procedure. A single-element tonometric pressure transducer was used to better investigate different inherent error sources of TBP measurement. A total of 5.7 hours of combined IBP and TBP were recorded from three patients. Although TBP performed fairly well as an alternative for IBP in steady state scenarios and some short-term variations, it could not detect relevant long-term pressure variations at all times. These findings are discussed in comparison to existing work. Physiological alterations at the site of TBP measurement are highlighted as a potentially important source of artifacts. It is concluded that at this point arterial tonometry remains not enough understood for long-term use during a delicate operative procedure. Physiological changes at the TBP measurement site deserve further investigation before tonometry technology is to be considered as an non-invasive alternative for long-term clinical monitoring.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: /st>For a majority of patients undergoing anaesthesia for general surgery, mean arterial pressure (MAP) is only measured intermittently by arm cuff oscillometry (MAPiNIAP). In contrast, the Nexfin(®) device provides continuous non-invasive measurement of MAP (MAPcNIAP) using a finger cuff. We explored the agreement of MAPcNIAP and MAPiNIAP with the gold standard: continuous invasive MAP measurement by placement of a radial artery catheter (MAPinvasive). /st>In a total of 120 patients undergoing elective general surgery and clinically requiring MAPinvasive measurement, MAPiNIAP and MAPcNIAP were measured in a 30 min time period at an arbitrary moment during surgery with stable haemodynamics. MAPiNIAP was measured every 5 min. /st>Data from 112 patients were analysed. Compared with MAPinvasive, modified Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias (sd) of 2 (9) mm Hg for MAPcNIAP and -2 (12) mm Hg for MAPiNIAP. Percentage errors for MAPcNIAP and MAPiNIAP were 22% and 32%, respectively. /st>In a haemodynamically stable phase in patients undergoing general anaesthesia, the agreement with invasive MAP of continuous non-invasive measurement using a finger cuff was not inferior to the agreement of intermittent arm cuff oscillometry. Continuous measurements using a finger cuff can interchangeably be used as an alternative for intermittent arm cuff oscillometry in haemodynamically stable patients, with the advantage of beat-to-beat haemodynamic monitoring.Clinical trial registrationNCT 01362335 (
    BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia 04/2014; 113(1). DOI:10.1093/bja/aeu091 · 4.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A non-invasive piezo-film-based measurement method for haemodynamic assessment is proposed. The design of a system, able to reconstruct the blood pressure waveform online by dealing with problems arising from the piezo-film capacitive nature in the targeted frequency range (from quasi-dc up to 12 Hz), is illustrated. The system is based on a commercial piezo-film placed easily on the radial artery with a special brace without any discomfort for the patient. The analogical conditioning circuit and digital signal processing are continuously tuned with the signal from the sensor to reconstruct the blood pressure signal online. Diagnostic schema, based on physio-pathological models, have been implemented in order to compute online trends of max[dP(t)/d(t)] and volemic status highly useful for the intensivist and anaesthesiologist. The system was characterized by numerical simulation and experimental in vivo comparison to the traditional reference system.
    Physiological Measurement 05/2010; 31(5):697-714. DOI:10.1088/0967-3334/31/5/007 · 1.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To document the relationship between stroke volume (SV) and pulse pressure (PP) recorded at the femoral and aortic sites during volume expansion (VE) in patients in shock. We hypothesized that non-invasively estimated aortic PP would exhibit the same ability as PP recorded invasively at the femoral level to track SV changes. Included in this prospective study were 56 ICU patients needing VE. Femoral PP (indwelling catheter), aortic PP (tonometry) and cardiac output (thermodilution) were recorded before and after VE. Responders were defined as patients who showed an increase in SV of ≥15% after VE. Of the 56 included patients in shock, 39 (age 57 ± 14 years, SAPS II 46 ± 18) completed the study. At both sites, PP increased after VE in responders (n=17, mean SV increase 30 ± 15%) but not in non-responders. In the overall population, there was a positive relationship between VE-induced changes in SV and in PP at the femoral (r=0.60, p<0.001) and aortic (r=0.52, p<0.001) sites. Increases in femoral PP of ≥9% indicated SV increases of ≥15% with 82% sensitivity and 95% specificity. Increases in aortic PP of ≥4.5% indicated SV increases of ≥15% with 76% sensitivity and 82% specificity. Areas under the ROC curves indicated that aortic PP was not different from femoral PP for tracking changes in SV. The ability of non-invasively estimated aortic PP to track fluid response was the same as that of invasively recorded femoral PP. This may have implications for non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring.
    European Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 03/2011; 37(6):942-9. DOI:10.1007/s00134-011-2154-z · 5.54 Impact Factor