Comparison of Noninvasive Oscillometric and Intra-Arterial Blood Pressure Measurements in Children Admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Abstract

Intra-arterial blood pressure (IABP) measurement, although considered the gold standard in critically ill children, is associated with certain risks and lacks widespread availability. This study was conducted to determine the differences and agreements between oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) and invasive IABP measurements in children. Inclusion criteria consisted of children (from 1 month to 18 years) admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a teaching hospital who required arterial catheter insertion for blood pressure (BP) monitoring. The comparison between IABP and NIBP was studied using paired t-test, Bland–Altman analysis, and Pearson's correlation coefficient. In total, 4,447 pairs of simultaneously recorded hourly NIBP and IABP measurements were collected from 65 children. Mean differences between IABP and NIBP were −3.6 ± 12.85, −4.7 ± 9.3, and −3.12 ± 9.30 mm Hg for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial BP, respectively (p < 0.001), with wide limits of agreement. NIBP significantly overestimated BP (p < 0.001) in all three BP states (hypotensive, normotensive, and hypertensive), except systolic blood pressure (SBP) during hypertension where IABP was significantly higher. The difference in SBP was most pronounced during hypotension. The difference in SBP was significant in children <10 years (p < 0.001), with the maximum difference being in infants. It was insignificant in adolescents (p = 0.28) and underweight children (p = 0.55). NIBP recorded significantly higher BP in all states of BP except SBP in the hypertensive state. SBP measured by NIBP tended to be the most reliable in adolescents and underweight children. NIBP was the most unreliable in infants, obese children, and during hypotension.

Keywords

blood pressure measurement - oscillometric principle - shock - intra-arterial blood pressure - pediatric intensive care unit

Publication History

Received: 27 August 2021

Accepted: 26 September 2021

Article published online:
16 November 2021

• References

• 1 Marino PL. Marino's The ICU Book. 4th ed.. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2014: 123-128
• 2 Antonelli M, Levy M, Andrews PJD. et al. Hemodynamic monitoring in shock and implications for management. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33 (04) 575-590
• 3 McEllistrem RF, O'Toole DP, Keane P. Post-cannulation radial artery aneurysm—a rare complication. Can J Anaesth 1990; 37 (08) 907-909
• 4 Qvist J, Peterfreund RA, Perlmutter GS. Transient compartment syndrome of the forearm after attempted radial artery cannulation. Anesth Analg 1996; 83 (01) 183-185
• 5 Chatterjee A, DePriest K, Blair R, Bowton D, Chin R. Results of a survey of blood pressure monitoring by intensivists in critically ill patients: a preliminary study. Crit Care Med 2010; 38 (12) 2335-2338
• 6 Pytte M, Dybwik K, Sexton J, Straume B, Nielsen EW. Oscillometric brachial mean artery pressures are higher than intra-radial mean artery pressures in intensive care unit patients receiving norepinephrine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2006; 50 (06) 718-721
• 7 Riley LE, Chen GJ, Latham HE. Comparison of noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with invasive arterial pressure monitoring in medical ICU patients with septic shock. Blood Press Monit 2017; 22 (04) 202-207
• 8 Wax DB, Lin HM, Leibowitz AB. Invasive and concomitant noninvasive intraoperative blood pressure monitoring: observed differences in measurements and associated therapeutic interventions. Anesthesiology 2011; 115 (05) 973-978
• 9 National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents. The fourth report on the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 2004; 114 (2, suppl 4th Report) 555-576
• 10 Kleinman ME, Chameides L, Schexnayder SM. et al. Part 14: pediatric advanced life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2010; 122 (18, Suppl 3): S876-S908
• 11 Goldstein B, Giroir B, Randolph A. International Consensus Conference on Pediatric Sepsis. International pediatric sepsis consensus conference: definitions for sepsis and organ dysfunction in pediatrics. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2005; 6 (01) 2-8
• 12 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 327 (8476): 307-310
• 13 Holt TR, Withington DE, Mitchell E. Which pressure to believe? A comparison of direct arterial with indirect blood pressure measurement techniques in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2011; 12 (06) e391-e394
• 14 Garnier RP, van der Spoel AG, Sibarani-Ponsen R, Markhorst DG, Boer C. Level of agreement between Nexfin non-invasive arterial pressure with invasive arterial pressure measurements in children. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109 (04) 609-615
• 15 Krishna BV, Das S, Sen S. Correlation between blood pressure measurement by non-invasive and invasive methods in critically-ill children. Indian Pediatr 2018; 55 (04) 297-300
• 16 Meidert AS, Dolch ME, Mühlbauer K. et al. Oscillometric versus invasive blood pressure measurement in patients with shock: a prospective observational study in the emergency department. J Clin Monit Comput 2021; 35 (02) 387-393
• 17 Chemla D, Teboul JL, Richard C. Noninvasive assessment of arterial pressure. Curr Opin Crit Care 2008; 14 (03) 317-321
• 18 Bur A, Herkner H, Vlcek M. et al. Factors influencing the accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure measurement in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2003; 31 (03) 793-799
• 19 Gibbs NM, Larach DR, Derr JA. The accuracy of Finapres noninvasive mean arterial pressure measurements in anesthetized patients. Anesthesiology 1991; 74 (04) 647-652