危重患者无创血压测量的准确性及对临床决策的影响

摘要
图/表
参考文献(0)
相关文章 (7)

全文: PDF (5119 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要 ［摘要］目的： 研究危重患者无创血压测量的准确性及对临床决策的影响。方法： 采用前瞻性观察性研究方法，纳入2021年3月至12月南京鼓楼医院ICU已建立有创动脉血压监测的133例危重患者，入室后1 h内同时测量无创血压和有创血压，记录无创与有创收缩压(systolic blood pressure，SBP)、舒张压(diastolic blood pressure，DBP)、平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure，MAP)。将患者分为应用血管活性药物的休克组和未应用血管活性药物的非休克组。应用Spearman、Bland-Altman相关性分析、组内相关系数（ICC）验证两种测量方法的一致性，采用误差网格法分析无创血压对临床决策的影响，采用多因素Logistic回归分析影响无创血压测量准确性的危险因素。结果： ① Spearman相关性结果显示，非休克组患者，有创与无创血压呈显著正相关(SBP有创-SBP无创、DBP有创-DBP无创、MAP有创-MAP无创 r分别为0.69、0.72、0.70，P均<0.001)；休克组患者，SBP有创-SBP无创呈一定正相关(r=0.34，P<0.05)，但DBP有创-DBP无创、MAP有创-MAP无创无明显相关性(P均＞0.05)。② 简单线性回归分析显示，非休克组患者，有创与无创血压呈正相关(SBP有创-SBP无创、DBP有创-DBP无创、MAP有创-MAP无创相关系数R2分别为0.56、0.58、0.43，P均<0.05)；休克组患者，有创与无创SBP、MAP成一定正相关(SBP有创-SBP无创、MAP有创-MAP无创相关系数R2分别为0.20、0.10，P均<0.05)，但DBP有创-DBP无创线性回归方程无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。③ Bland-Altman结果显示，非休克组与休克组患者，有创与无创血压在平均差值区间±10 mmHg的数据点占比均不满足美国医疗仪器促进协会(AAMI)无创血压测量标准，一致性差(SBP有创SBP无创、DBP有创-DBP无创、MAP有创-MAP无创在平均差值区间±10 mmHg的数据点占比：非休克组患者分别为63%、73%、76%，休克组患者分别为35%、50%、52%，P均<0.05)。④ ICC结果显示，非休克组患者，DBP有创-DBP无创一致性较好(绝对一致性系数0.76＞0.75，P<0.001)；休克组患者，SBP有创SBP无创、MAP有创MAP无创一致性均较差(绝对一致性系数0.33、0.31＜0.4，P均<0.05)，DBP有创-DBP无创无显著一致性(P＞0.05)。⑤ 误差网格分析结果显示，休克组患者，无创与有创SBP配对测量数据点在A~E区占比分别为88.7%、6.5%、4.8%、0%和0%，无创与有创MAP配对测量数据点的占比分别为61.3%、38.7%、0%、0%和0%；非休克组患者，无创与有创SBP配对测量数据点在A~E区占比分别为95.8%、4.2%、0%、0%和0%，无创与有创MAP配对测量数据点的占比分别为97.2%、1.4%、1.4%、0%和0%。⑥ 多因素Logistic回归结果显示，休克是导致无创与有创SBP、DBP、MAP差值大于10 mmHg的危险因素(P<0.05)，年龄是导致无创与有创SBP、MAP差值大于10 mmHg的危险因素(P<0.05)，心率是导致无创与有创SBP差值大于10 mmHg的危险因素(P<0.05)，是无创与有创DBP、MAP差值大于10 mmHg的保护因素(P<0.05)。结论： 未休克的危重患者，无创血压测量准确性较好，以无创MAP指导临床决策较可靠，伴有休克的危重患者应用无创血压代替有创血压测量需谨慎。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	颜铭
	徐颖
	顾勤

关键词 ：有创血压, 无创血压, 休克, 血管活性药物, 平均动脉压, 重症监护室

Abstract：［Abstract］Objective： To investigate the accuracy of noninvasive blood pressure measurement and the impact on clinical decisionmaking in critically ill patients. Methods： Using a prospective observational study, a total of 133 critically ill patients with established invasive blood pressure monitoring in the ICU of Nanjing Drum tower Hospital from March to December 2021 were included. Non-invasive and invasive blood pressure were measured and recorded simultaneously within 1 h after admission. The patients were divided into shock group with vasoactive drugs and non-shock group without vasoactive drugs. Spearman, Bland-Altman correlation analysis and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were applied to verify the consistency of the two monitoring methods, and the error grid method was used to analyze the effect of noninvasive blood pressure on guiding clinical decision-making. Results： ① Spearman correlation results showed that in nonshock patients, there were significant positive correlation between invasive and the non-invasive blood pressure (r of SBP, DBP, MAP were 0.69, 0.72, 0.70, all P<0.001). In shock patients, there was a significant positive correlation between SBPinvasive-SBPnoninvasive (r=0.34, P<0.05), while DBPinvasive-DBPnoninvasive, MAPinvasiveMAPnoninvasive without significant correlation (both P>0.05). ② Simple linear regression analysis revealed that in non-shock patients, there was a significant positive correlation between invasive and non-invasive blood pressure (R2 of SBP, DBP, MAP were 0.56, 0.58, 0.43, all P<0.05). In shock patients, invasive and noninvasive SBP and MAP were significantly positively correlated (R2 of SBP, MAP were 0.20, 0.10, P<005). DBPinvasive and DBPnoninvasive linear regression equation was not statistically significant (P>0.05). ③ The Bland-Altman analysis results showed that patients in the non-shock and shock groups, the proportion of data points between invasive and noninvasive blood pressure in the mean difference interval ±10 mmHg did not meet the non-invasive blood pressure measurement criteria of AAMI. Poor consistency (SBPinvasive-SBPnoninvasive, DBPinvasive-DBPnoninvasive, MAPinvasive-MAPnoninvasive data points in the average difference range of 10 mmHg: 63%, 73% and 76% of patients in non-shock group, and 35%, 50% and 52% in the shock group, respectively, all P<0.05). ④ The ICCs showed that in nonshock group patients, there was a significant positive correlation between SBPinvasive and SBPnoninvasive (the absolute consistency was 0.76＞0.75, P<0.001). In shock group patients, there were bad consistency coefficients between SBPinvasive and SBPnoninvasive, MAPinvasive and MAPnoninvasive (the absolute consistencies were 0.33, 0.31<0.4, both P<0.001), and the noncorrelation between DBPinvasive and DBPnoninvasive (P>0.05). ⑤ Error grid analysis results showed that in the shock group patients, the proportions of SBP measurements in the A to E hazard areas were 88.7%, 6.5%, 4.8%, 0%, and 0%. The proportions of the MAP measurements were 61.3%, 38.7%, 0%, 0%, and 0%. In the nonshock group .atients, the proportions of SBP measurements in the A to E hazard zone were 95.8%, 4.2%, 0%, 0%, and 0%. The proportions of MAP measurements were 97.2%, 1.4%, 1.4%, 0%, and 0%. ⑥ The multivariate Logistic regression showed that shock was a risk factor for the difference between non-invasive and invasive SBP, DBP and MAP greater than 10 mmHg (P<0.05), age was a risk factor for the difference between noninvasive and invasive SBP and MAP greater than 10 mmHg (P<0.05); heart rate was a risk factor for the difference between non-invasive and invasive SBP greater than 10 mmHg (P<0.05), and was a protective factor for the difference between noninvasive and invasive DBP and MAP greater than 10 mmHg (P<0.05). Conclusion： For critically ill patients with nonshock, the accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurement is better, and is more reliable to guide clinical decisionmaking with non-invasive MAP. It should be cautious when using non-invasive blood pressure instead of invasive blood pressure measurement in critically ill patients with shock.

收稿日期: 2022-12-05

通讯作者: 顾勤(通讯作者)，主任医师，教授，硕士生导师；E-mail：icuguqin@sina.com

作者简介: 颜铭(1996—)，女，硕士研究生

引用本文:

颜铭，徐颖，顾勤. 危重患者无创血压测量的准确性及对临床决策的影响[J]. 江苏大学学报:医学版, 2023, 33(02): 99-106,111. YAN Ming, XU Ying, GU Qin. Accuracy of noninvasive blood pressure measurement in critically ill patients and and its impact on clinical decision-making. Journal of Jiangsu University(Medicine Edition), 2023, 33(02): 99-106,111.

链接本文:

http://zzs.ujs.edu.cn/xbyxb/CN/ 或 http://zzs.ujs.edu.cn/xbyxb/CN/Y2023/V33/I02/99

［1］Kaufmann T, Cox EGM, Wiersema R, et al. Noninvasive oscillometric versus invasive arterial blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients: A post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study［J］. J Crit care, 2020, 57: 118-123.
［2］Stergiou GS, Alpert B, Mieke S, et al. A universal standard for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) Collaboration Statement［J］. J Hypertens, 2018, 36(3): 472-478.
［3］Lehman LW, Saeed M, Talmor D, et al. Methods of blood pressure measurement in the ICU［J］. Crit Care Med, 2013, 41(1): 34-40.
［4］Nuttall G, Burckhardt J, Hadley A, et al. Surgical and patient risk factors for severe arterial line complications in adults［J］. Anesthesiology, 2016, 124(3): 590-597.
［5］Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Boulain T. Noninvasive BP monitoring in the critically ill: time to abandon the arterial catheter?［J］. Chest, 2018, 153(4): 1023-1039.
［6］Pytte M, Dybwik K, Sexton J, et al. Oscillometric brachial mean artery pressures are higher than intraradial mean artery pressures in intensive care unit patients receiving norepinephrine［J］. Acta anaesthesiol Scand, 2006, 50(6): 718-721.
［7］Saugel B, Grothe O, Nicklas JY. Error gid analysis for arterial pressure method comparison studies［J］. Anesth Analg, 2018, 126(4): 1177-1185.（下转第111页）第2期李艳秀，等.脓毒症血管活性药物的选择第33卷第2期2023年3月江苏大学学报(医学版)JournalofJiangsuUniversity(Medicine Edition)Vol.33No.2Mar. 2023脓毒症血管活性药物的选择
［8］Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis［J］. Biochem Med (Zagreb), 2015, 25(2): 141-151.
［9］朱灵妍, 姚成增. 高血压病血压昼夜节律与靶器官损害［J］. 江苏大学学报(医学版), 2013, 23(2): 180-184.
［10］Saugel B, Kouz K, Meidert AS, et al. How to measure blood pressure using an arterial catheter: a systematic 5step approach［J］. Crit Care, 2020, 24(1): 172.
［11］Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine［J］. Intensive Care Med, 2014, 40(12): 1795-1815.
［12］Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Runge I, et al. Tracking hypotension and dynamic changes in arterial blood pressure with brachial cuff measurements［J］. Anesth Analg, 2009, 109(2): 494-501.
［13］Lakhal K, Ehrmann S, Martin M, et al. Blood pressure monitoring during arrhythmia: agreement between automated brachial cuff and intraarterial measurements［J］. Br J Anaesth, 2015, 115(4): 540-549.
［14］Lakhal K, Macq C, Ehrmann S, et al. Noninvasive monitoring of blood pressure in the critically ill: reliability according to the cuff site (arm, thigh, or ankle)［J］. Crit Care Med, 2012, 40(4): 1207-1213.
［15］Riley LE, Chen GJ, Latham HE. Comparison of noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with invasive arterial pressure monitoring in medical ICU patients with septic shock［J］. Blood Press Monit, 2017, 22(4): 202-207.
［16］Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Asmar R, et al. Recommendations and Practical Guidance for performing and reporting validation studies according to the Universal Standard for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO)［J］. J Hypertens, 2019, 37(3): 459-466.
［17］Parkes JL, Slatin SL, Pardo S, et al. A new consensus error grid to evaluate the clinical significance of inaccuracies in the measurement of blood glucose［J］. Diabetes Care, 2000, 23(8): 1143-1148.
［18］Klonoff DC, Lias C, Vigersky R, et al. The surveillance error grid［J］. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2014, 8(4): 658-672.