-
- Turi K Aarnes, John Ae Hubbell, Phillip Lerche, and Richard M Bednarski.
- Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
- Vet Anaesth Analg. 2014 Mar 1; 41 (2): 174-85.
ObjectiveTo determine the level of agreement between an oscillometric (O-NIBP) and an invasive method (IBP) of monitoring arterial blood pressure (ABP) in anesthetized sheep, goats, and cattle.Study DesignProspective clinical study.AnimalsTwenty sheep and goats, 20 cattle weighing < 150 kg body weight, and 20 cattle weighing 150 kg body weight.MethodsAnimals were anesthetized and systolic ABP (SABP), mean ABP (MABP), and diastolic ABP (DABP) were measured using IBP and O-NIBP. Differences between IBP and O-NIBP, and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) between SABP, MABP, and DABP values were assessed by the Bland-Altman method.ResultsMean difference ± standard deviation (range) between SABP, DABP, and MABP measurements in sheep and goats was 0 ± 16 (-57 to 38) mmHg, 13 ± 16 (-37 to 70) mmHg, and 8 ± 13 (-34 to 54) mmHg, respectively. Mean difference between SABP, DABP, and MABP measurements in small cattle was 0 ± 19 (-37 to 37) mmHg, 6 ± 18 (-77 to 48) mmHg, and 4 ± 16 (-73 to 48) mmHg, respectively. Mean difference between SABP, DABP, and MABP measurements in large cattle was -18 ± 32 (-107 to 71) mmHg, 7 ± 29 (-112 to 63) mmHg, and -5 ± 28 (-110 to 60) mmHg, respectively. The 95% LOAs for SABP, DABP, and MABP were -31 to +31, -19 to +44, and -19 to +34 mmHg, respectively in sheep and goats; were -37 to +37, -19 to +44, and -19 to +34 mmHg, respectively in small cattle; and were -81 to +45, -50 to +63, and -59 to +50 mmHg, respectively in large cattle.ConclusionsAgreement was poor between O-NIBP and IBP monitoring techniques.Clinical RelevanceArterial BP should be monitored in anesthetized sheep, goats, and cattle using IBP.© 2013 Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists and the American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia.
Notes