ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2019
Development and clinical validation of a non-invasive, beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring device, compared to invasive blood pressure monitoring during coronary angiography.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Application Analysis of Positive-Pressure Connector in Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring in Coronary Interventional Therapy.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and test a beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring device during coronary angiography, and compare it with invasive blood pressure monitoring.
methodsTwenty-eight patients with an indication for hemodynamic study were selected for this investigation, and kept in supine position. Before starting the coronary angiography, they were instructed about the use of the left radial bracelet for beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring.
resultsThere was a significant difference between the time required for the catheterization laboratory team to acquire the first invasive blood pressure reading and the time to obtain the first beat-to-beat reading (11.1±5.1 and 1.5±1.8, respectively; p<0.0001). The intraclass correlation coefficients (95%CI) of systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 0.897 (0.780-0.952) and 0.876 (0.734-0.942), indicating good reproducibility.
conclusionThis study showed the process to develop a beat-to-beat blood pressure monitoring device. When compared to invasive blood pressure monitoring, there were no significant differences between the two methods. This technique may play a promising coadjuvant role when combined with invasive monitoring during coronary angiography procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.