CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cleland, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cleland, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, D. R.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 45, 699-705, Copyright © 1998 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Influence of arrhythmias on accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure monitors

MJ Cleland, B Pham and DR Miller
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ottawa General Hospital, Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitors in response to common cardiac arrhythmias. METHODS: Simulated signals of normal sinus rhythm (NSR), premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), atrial fibrillation (AF) and missed beats (MB) were generated from a Cufflink (Dynatech Nevada) NIBP simulator. Using these signals, the Critikon 1846SX (C1846), Critikon 845xt (C845). Critikon Vital Signs (CVIT), and Hewlett Packard M1008a (HP1008) were studied at a standard dynamic blood pressure of 120/90/80 mmHg, in order to compare monitor accuracy and signal response times. RESULTS: The C845 monitors most closely estimated a simulated SBP of 120 mmHg, although SBP was greater during PVCs and AF than NSR (P < 0.05). The Critikon 1846, Critikon Vital Signs, and Hewlett Packard systematically underestimated SBP during these arrhythmias, but variability was modest, as reflected by small coefficients of variation (< 2% for SBP) with all monitor types. In general, MAP and DBP were less sensitive to the effects of these arrhythmias. Finally, missed beats prolonged signal response times with all four monitor types (P < 0.05), whereas PVCs and AF did not alter this parameter. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the extent to which the accuracy of NIBP monitors is altered by common cardiac arrhythmias. Differences in the electromechanical characteristics of these devices may help to explain the observed similarities and discrepancies.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.