Accuracy and precision of continuous non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring in critical care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE\nTo summarize the evidence regarding the accuracy of continuous non-invasive arterial pressure measurements in adult critical care patients.\n\n\nRESEARCH METHODOLOGY\nMedline, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for studies that included adult critical care patients reporting the agreement between continuous non-invasive and invasive arterial pressure measurements. The studies were selected and assessed for risk of bias using the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool by two independent reviewers. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach was used. Pooled estimates of the mean bias and limits of agreement with outer 95% confidence intervals (termed population limits of agreement) were calculated.\n\n\nRESULTS\nPopulation limits of agreement for systolic blood pressure were wide, spanning from -36.13\xa0mmHg to 28.28\xa0mmHg (18 studies; 785 participants). Accuracy of diastolic blood pressure measurements was highly inconsistent across studies, resulting in imprecise estimates for the population limits of agreement. Population limits of agreement for mean arterial pressure spanned from -39.96\xa0mmHg to 44.36\xa0mmHg (17 studies; 765 participants). The evidence was rated as very low-quality due to very serious concerns about heterogeneity and imprecision.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nSubstantial differences in blood pressure were identified between measurements taken from continuous non-invasive and invasive monitoring devices. Clinicians should consider this broad range of uncertainty if using these devices to inform clinical decision-making in critical care.