Supplemental Digital Content 3
Comparison to other studies
Comparing our study to other recently published studies using the summary of Lakhal at al.
[1] that summarizes the results of 41 recent publications, our results are promising. For a fair comparison, only small size studies were included (patient number no more than 25). For diastole and MAP, we got better results than studies using Peñaz principle-based devices with lower mean bias difference and standard deviation. Balzer et al. [2], Heusdens et al. [3] and Hofhuizen et al. [4] got a mean bias difference around 5 mmHg and standard deviation between 5 and 13 mmHg which are significantly higher than our results. For systole, however, these studies show significantly lower mean bias difference (between -5.2 and 2.7 mmHg) than our results, but with a higher mean standard deviation between 10 and 16 mmHg.
Comparing to tonometric studies published by Lin et al. [5], Meidert et al. [6, 7], Dueck et al. [8], Szmuk et al. [9] and Janelle et al. [10], the mean bias difference values and standard deviation values for diastole and MAP are generally almost the same as what we got: mean bias difference is between 1 and 5 mmHg and standard deviation is between 4 and 7 mmHg. For systole, these studies showed better results by having the mean bias difference between -3.3 and 2.3 mmHg and standard deviation between 5.9 and 15 mmHg.
References
[1] K. Lakhal, S. Ehrmann, and T. Boulain, “Non-invasive blood pressure monitoring in the critically ill: time to abandon the intra-arterial catheter?,” Chest, 2017.
[2] F. Balzer, M. Habicher, M. Sander, J. Sterr, S. Scholz, A. Feldheiser, M. Müller, C. Perka amd S. Treskatsch, “Comparison of the non-invasive Nexfin® monitor with conventional
methods for the measurement of arterial blood pressure in moderate risk orthopaedic surgery patients, ” Journal of International Medical Research, vol. 44, no.4, pp. 832–843, 2016.
[3] J. F. Heusdens, S. Lof, C. W. A. Pennekamp, J. C. Specken-Welleweerd, G. J. de Borst, W. A. van Klei, L. van Wolfswinkel, and R. V. Immink, “Validation of non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring during carotid endarterectomy,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 316–323, 2016.
[4] C. Hofhuizen, B. Lansdorp, J. G. van der Hoeven, G.-J. Scheffer and J. Lemson,
“Validation of noninvasive pulse contour cardiac output using finger arterial pressure in cardiac surgery patients requiring fluid therapy,” Journal of critical care, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 161–165, 2014.
[5] W.-Q. Lin, H.-H. Wu, C.-S. Su, J.-T. Yang, J.-R. Xiao, Y.-P. Cai, X.-Z. Wu and G.-Z.
Chen, “Comparison of continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring by TL-300 with standard invasive blood pressure measurement in patients undergoing elective neurosurgery,” Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology, Wolters Kluwer, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2017.
[6] A. Meidert, W. Huber, J. Müller, M. Schöfthaler, A. Hapfelmeier, N. Langwieser, J.
Wagner, F. Eyer, R. Schmid, and B. Saugel, “Radial artery applanation tonometry for continuous non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring in intensive care unit patients:
comparison with invasively assessed radial arterial pressure,” British journal of anaesthesia, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 521–528, 2013.
[7] A. S. Meidert, W. Huber, A. Hapfelmeier, M. Schöfthaler, J. N. Müller, N. Langwieser, J.
Y. Wagner, R. M. Schmid and B. Saugel, “Evaluation of the radial artery applanation tonometry technology for continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring compared with central aortic blood pressure measurements in patients with multiple organ
dysfunction syndrome,” Journal of critical care, Elsevier, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 908–912, 2013.
[8] R. Dueck, O. Goedje, and P. Clopton, “Noninvasive continuous beat-to-beat radial artery pressure via tl-200 applanation tonometry,” Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 75–83, 2012.
[9] P. Szmuk, E. Pivalizza, R. D. Warters, T. Ezri and R. Gebhard, “An evaluation of the T- Line Tensymeter continuous noninvasive blood pressure device during induced hypotension,” Anesthesia, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 307–312, 2008.
[10] G. M. Janelle and N. Gravenstein, “An accuracy evaluation of the T-Line Tensymeter (continuous noninvasive blood pressure management device) versus conventional invasive radial artery monitoring in surgical patients,” Anesthesia & Analgesia, vol. 102, no.2, pp.
484–490, 2006.
