• Christopher Chow, Peter Ceglowski, Katie Lehane, Anita Pelecanos, Kellie Wren, and Victoria A Eley.
• Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
• BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 Apr 4; 20 (1): 7676.

BackgroundArm conicity is associated with non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement error and may be avoided by using finger cuffs. Predicting arm conicity may help decisions regarding NIBP measurement techniques.MethodsWe obtained upper limb measurements of adults presenting to the Pre-Anesthetic Clinic to determine: the suitability of arm and finger cuff sizes; the best anthropometric predictor of arm conicity based on the right arm slant angle; the incidence of a right arm slant angle < 83 degrees. Right mid-arm circumference (MAC) was compared to recommended cuff sizes and finger circumference compared to available cuffs. Slant angle was calculated from the measurements obtained. Linear regression was used to determine the better predictor of right arm slant angle. Correlation coefficients were calculated and R2 values compared.ResultsFour hundred fifty-four patients participated and 453 had cone-shaped arms. One participant (0.2, 95% CI 0.0-1.2) had a MAC outside the recommended cuff range. Twenty-five participants (5.5, 95% CI 3.6-8.0) had a middle finger circumference greater than the largest ClearSight™ cuff. Body mass index (BMI), weight and right MAC all had low to moderate correlation with right arm slant angle (r = - 0.49, - 0.39, - 0.48, all p < 0.001) and regression revealed R2 values of 0.24, 0.15 and 0.23. Six participants (1.3, 95% CI 0.5-2.9) had a slant angle < 83 degrees.ConclusionCurrent NIBP equipment caters for most patients, based on the traditional measure of MAC. The utility of finger cuffs is limited by cuff size. BMI and right MAC showed the most promise in predicting arm conicity.

23 keywords...

hide…