• Gunther Pestel, Kimiko Fukui, Volker Hartwich, Peter M Schumacher, Andreas Vogt, Luzius B Hiltebrand, Andrea Kurz, Yoshihisa Fujita, Daniel Inderbitzin, and Daniel Leibundgut.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany.
• Anesth. Analg. 2009 Jun 1;108(6):1823-9.

BackgroundDifference in pulse pressure (dPP) reliably predicts fluid responsiveness in patients. We have developed a respiratory variation (RV) monitoring device (RV monitor), which continuously records both airway pressure and arterial blood pressure (ABP). We compared the RV monitor measurements with manual dPP measurements.MethodsABP and airway pressure (PAW) from 24 patients were recorded. Data were fed to the RV monitor to calculate dPP and systolic pressure variation in two different ways: (a) considering both ABP and PAW (RV algorithm) and (b) ABP only (RV(slim) algorithm). Additionally, ABP and PAW were recorded intraoperatively in 10-min intervals for later calculation of dPP by manual assessment. Interobserver variability was determined. Manual dPP assessments were used for comparison with automated measurements. To estimate the importance of the PAW signal, RV(slim) measurements were compared with RV measurements.ResultsFor the 24 patients, 174 measurements (6-10 per patient) were recorded. Six observers assessed dPP manually in the first 8 patients (10-min interval, 53 measurements); no interobserver variability occurred using a computer-assisted method. Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable bias and limits of agreement of the 2 automated methods compared with the manual method (RV: -0.33% +/- 8.72% and RV(slim): -1.74% +/- 7.97%). The difference between RV measurements and RV(slim) measurements is small (bias -1.05%, limits of agreement 5.67%).ConclusionsMeasurements of the automated device are comparable with measurements obtained by human observers, who use a computer-assisted method. The importance of the PAW signal is questionable.

27 keywords...

hide…