Risk factors for poor performance in finger cuff non-invasive monitoring of arterial pressure: A prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Compared to the invasive technique, non-invasive monitoring of arterial pressure favors easier and faster implementation while potentially sacrificing some reliability. This may be particularly true for the Clearsight™ system (Edwards Lifesciences), which enables continuous monitoring. We evaluated the risk factors for its poor performance. METHODS: Patients with an arterial catheter and stable mean arterial pressure (MAP) over a 5-min period were included. Six pairs of invasive and Clearsight measurements of MAP were collected and the bias between the two techniques was calculated. Poor performance of the Clearsight™ system was defined as either a failure to measure and display MAP or displaying an erroneous MAP (individual bias > 5 mmHg). Fingertip perfusion was assessed using the plethysmographic perfusion index (PI) and the capillary refill time (CRT). RESULTS: Among 152 ICU patients (MAP of 81 ± 14 mmHg, norepinephrine in 78 [51%]), 78 (51%) experienced a poor performance of the Clearsight™ system: failure to display MAP in 19 (13%) patients, and erroneous value displayed in 59 (44%). In multivariate analysis, PI ≤ 0.85% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.94 [95% confidence interval (95%CI):1.34;6.45]), CRT > 4 s (aOR = 5.28 [95%CI 1.39;20.05]), and the presence of hand edema (aOR = 2.06 [95%CI 1.01;4.21]) were associated with a higher likelihood of poor performance. Cardiac arrhythmia (aOR = 1.39 [95%CI 0.64;3.02]) and other tested variables were not associated with poor performance. CONCLUSIONS: Half of the included patients exhibited poor Clearsight™ system performance. Our results caution against using finger cuff arterial pressure monitoring in patients with low PI (≤0.85%), protracted CRT (>4 s), or hand edema. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04269382, Dr. G. Muller, February 13, 2020. https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04269382.

Noninvasive Monitoring of Arterial Pressure: Finger or Lower Leg As Alternatives to the Upper Arm: A Prospective Study in Three ICUs.

OBJECTIVES: When the upper arm is inaccessible for measurements of arterial pressure (AP), the best alternative site is unknown. We performed a between-site comparison of the agreement between invasive and noninvasive readings of AP taken at the lower leg, the finger, and the upper arm. The risk associated with measurement errors and the trending ability were also assessed. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Three ICUs. PATIENTS: Patients having an arterial catheter and an arm circumference less than 42 cm. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three triplicates of AP measurements were collected via an arterial catheter (reference AP), a finger cuff system (ClearSight; Edward Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), and an oscillometric cuff (at the lower leg then the upper arm). Trending ability was assessed through an additional set of measurements after a cardiovascular intervention. The default bed backrest angle was respected. Failure to measure and display AP occurred in 19 patients (13%) at the finger, never at other sites. In 130 patients analyzed, the agreement between noninvasive and invasive readings was worse at the lower leg than that observed at the upper arm or the finger (for mean AP, bias ± sd of 6.0 ± 15.8 vs 3.6 ± 7.1 and 0.1 ± 7.4 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.05), yielding a higher frequency of error-associated clinical risk (no risk for 64% vs 84% and 86% of measurements, respectively, p < 0.0001). According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 81060-2:2018 standard, mean AP measurements were reliable at the upper arm and the finger, not the lower leg. In 33 patients reassessed after a cardiovascular intervention, both the concordance rate for change in mean AP and the ability to detect a therapy-induced significant change were good and similar at the three sites. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with lower leg measurements of AP, finger measurements were, when possible, a preferable alternative to upper arm ones.

Assessing oral comprehension with an eye tracking based innovative device in critically ill patients and healthy volunteers: a cohort study.

PURPOSE: Communication of caregivers and relatives to patients is a major difficulty in intensive care units (ICU). Patient's comprehension capabilities are variable over time and traditional comprehension tests cannot be implemented. Our purpose was to evaluate an oral comprehension test adapted for its automatic implementation using eye-tracking technology among ICU patients. METHODS: Prospective bi-centric cohort study was conducted on 60 healthy volunteers and 53 ICU patients. Subjects underwent an oral comprehension test using an eye-tracking device: Their results and characteristics were collected. The total duration of the test was 2 and a half minutes. RESULTS: While performing the test, 48 patients (92%) received invasive ventilation. Among healthy volunteers, the median rate of right answers was very high (93% [interquartile range 87, 100]), whereas it was lower (33% [20, 67]) for patients. For both groups, a significantly lower right answers rate was observed with advancing age (67% [27, 80] vs. 27% [20, 38] among patients and 93% [93, 100] vs. 87% [73, 93] among healthy volunteers, below and above 60 years of age, respectively) and in case of lack of a bachelor's degree (60% [38, 87] vs. 27% [20, 57] among patients and 93% [93, 100] vs. 87% [73, 93] among healthy volunteers). For patients, the higher the severity of disease was, the lower the rate of correct answers was. CONCLUSION: The eye-tracking-adapted comprehension test is easy and fast to use among ICU patients, and results seem coherent with various potential levels of comprehension as hypothesized in this study.