• Koen Ameloot, Pieter-Jan Palmers, and Manu L N G Malbrain.
• aDepartment of Cardiology bDepartment of Intensive Care, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven cDepartment of Intensive Care dDepartment of High Care Burn Unit, Ziekenhuis Netwerk Antwerpen, ZNA Stuivenberg, Antwerp, Belgium.
• Curr Opin Crit Care. 2015 Jun 1;21(3):232-9.

Purpose Of ReviewThe present review aims to summarize literature on the accuracy of the finger cuff method to measure cardiac output (CO) and blood pressure, its ability to track hemodynamic changes, and to predict fluid responsiveness.Recent FindingsFinger cuff is an easy-to-use hemodynamic monitoring technique. Different devices are currently available, which provide continuous arterial blood pressure (Finapress), whereas only ClearSight (previously known as Nexfin; BMEYE) provides an estimate of CO. In most studies, the criteria for clinical interchangeability (for CO) were not met, when compared with the currently used invasive monitoring systems such as uncalibrated CO via a radial artery line, and calibrated CO either via a pulmonary artery catheter or a femoral artery catheter connected to the PiCCO (Pulsion Medical Systems) or VolumeView (Edwards Lifesciences) devices. In particular, ClearSight obtained CO seems to be less accurate in patients with a low CO. However, in most patients, ClearSight is able to track hemodynamic changes induced by a fluid challenge or passive leg raising test. We will discuss in this review the relevant literature with regard to validation of the finger cuff technique for both arterial blood pressure and CO.SummaryThe finger cuff method provides a reasonable estimate of CO and blood pressure, which does not meet the criteria for clinical interchangeability with the currently used invasive devices.

19 keywords...

hide…