ReviewCureus2024
Can Currently Available Non-invasive Continuous Blood Pressure Monitors Replace Invasive Measurement With an Arterial Catheter?
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancements and challenges in blood pressure monitoring using pulse wave propagation: a comprehensive review and ISO 81060-2 based statistical analysis.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Review
- Systolic Pressure and Pulse Rate Range Performance Comparison of Seven Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Monitors.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Invasive and non-invasive monitoring in the ICU.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deviations from normal blood pressure (BP) during general anesthesia have been clearly linked to several adverse outcomes. Measuring BP accurately is therefore critically important for producing excellent outcomes in health care. Normal BP does not necessarily guarantee adequate organ perfusion however and adverse events have occurred even when BP seemed adequate. Invasive blood pressure monitoring has recently evolved beyond merely measuring BP. Arterial line-derived pulse contour analysis is used now to assess both cardiac output and stroke volume variation as indices of adequate intravascular volume. Confirmation of acceptable cardiac output with data derived from invasive intra-arterial catheters has become very important when managing high-risk patients. Newer devices that measure BP continuously and non-invasively in the digital arteries via a finger cuff have also become available. Many clinicians contemplate now if these new devices are ready to replace invasive monitoring with an arterial catheter. Unlike non-invasive devices, intra-arterial catheters allow frequent blood sampling. This makes it possible to assess vital parameters like pH, hemoglobin concentration, ionized calcium, potassium, glucose, and arterial partial pressure of oxygen and carbon dioxide frequently. Non-invasive continuous BP measurement has been found to be unreliable in critically ill patients, the elderly, and patients with calcified arteries. Pulse contour-derived estimates of cardiac output and stroke volume variation have been validated better with data derived from arterial lines than that from the newer finger cuff monitors. Significant advances have been recently made with non-invasive continuous BP monitors. Invasive monitoring with an arterial line however remains the gold standard for measuring BP and assessing pulse contour analysis-derived hemodynamic variables in critically ill patients. In the future, non-invasive continuous BP monitors will likely replace intermittent oscillometers in the operating room and the postoperative period. They will however not eliminate the need for arterial catheterization in critically ill patients.
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.