Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34505631›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2022

The ClearSight System for Postoperative Arterial Blood Pressure Monitoring After Carotid Endarterectomy: A Validation Study.

Leonie M M Fassaert, Joost D J Plate, Jan Westerink, Rogier V Immink, Gert J de Borst

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of hypertension, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Leonie M M FassaertDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9998-3654
Joost D J PlateDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jan WesterinkDepartment of Vascular Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5021-5227
Rogier V ImminkDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Gert J de BorstDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe majority of postoperative events in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are of hemodynamic origin, requiring preventive strict postoperative arterial blood pressure (BP) control. This study aimed to assess whether BP monitoring with noninvasive beat-to-beat ClearSight finger BP (BPCS) can replace invasive beat-to-beat radial artery BP (BPRAD) in the postoperative phase.

methodsThis study was a single-center clinical validation study using a prespecified study protocol. In 48 patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, BPCS and BPRAD were monitored ipsilateral in a simultaneous manner during a 6-hour period on the recovery unit following CEA. Primary endpoints were accuracy and precision of BP derived by ClearSight (Edward Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) vs. the reference standard (Arbocath 20 G, Hospira, Lake Forest, IL) to investigate if BPCS is a reliable noninvasive alternative for BP monitoring postoperatively in CEA patients. Validation was guided by the standard set by the Association for Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), considering a BP-monitor adequate when bias (precision) is <5 (8) mm Hg. Secondary endpoint was percentage under- and overtreatment, defined as exceedance of individual postoperative systolic BP threshold by BPRAD or BPCS in contrast to BPCS or BPRAD, respectively.

resultsThe bias (precision) of BPCS compared to BPRAD was -10 (13.6), 8 (7.2) and 4 (7.8) mm Hg for systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure (MAP), respectively. Based on BPCS, undertreatment was 5.6% and overtreatment was 2.4%; however, percentages of undertreatment quadrupled for lower systolic BP thresholds.

conclusionsNoninvasive MAP, but not systolic and diastolic BP, was similar to invasive BPRAD during postoperative observation following CEA, based on AAMI criteria. However, as systolic BP is currently leading in postoperative monitoring to adjust BP therapy on, BPCS is not a reliable alternative for BPRAD.

Indexed as

Arterial PressureEndarterectomy, CarotidBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationHumansarterial pressureblood pressurecarotid endarterectomyClearSighthypertensionnoninvasive continuous arterial pressure measurementpostoperative monitoring

Identifiers

PMID34505631
PMCPMC8807161
OpenAlexW3196382856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.