Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2025
Hypotension prediction index: comparison between invasive and non-invasive pressure inputs.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05025176 (Hypotension Prediction Index), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Hypotension Prediction Index: Correlations Between Invasive and Non-invasive Pressure Points
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) derived using an Acumen™ arterial pressure transducer can decrease the incidence of intraoperative hypotension and possibly decrease perioperative complications. The HPI can also be obtained from the ClearSight™ continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitor. Concurrent comparison of HPI values obtained from these two pressure inputs is limited and additional comparisons could increase clinician confidence in non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring, expand its applications and improve patient outcomes.
methodsSimultaneous hemodynamics were recorded using two HemoSphere monitors with the HPI software and either intra-arterial Acumen
results6,862 paired data points were available from 36 patients. Bland-Altman comparisons demonstrated a bias of -8.4 (± 23) with limits of agreement from - 53 to 36. The correlation between HPI values was strong with an r value of 0.76 (95%CI:0.75-0.77). Concordance was also strong at 74% (10% exclusion zone). Using ROC analysis, the AUC for prediction of hypotension was similar and at 5 min was 0.883 [0.786,0.953] for the invasive pressure and 0.860 [0.770,0.939] for the non-invasive pressure inputs. At the same time points, the agreement between HPI alerts was high with an accuracy of 86.3%.
conclusionHPI values and predictive performance were comparable when derived from either invasive or non-invasive pressure inputs.
trial registrationThe study was approved by the UC Davis Institutional Review Board (IRB #1791102-1) and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05025176) before the enrollment of the first patient.
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.