ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Diagnostic accuracy of pre-hospital invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring for haemodynamic management in traumatic brain injury and spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should Aggressive Blood Pressure Management of Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage Be Guided with Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring?Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Maintenance of prehospital anaesthesia using an intermittent bolus regime in blunt trauma patients with a high GCS and hemodynamic reserve: a retrospective cohort study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Prehospital invasive vs. non-invasive blood pressure monitoring: Impact on shock index at hospital admission in critically ill patients - a prospective intervention study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Implementing prehospital invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring in critically ill patients-a prospective observational first year analysis.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeuroprotective measures to prevent secondary brain injury are a critical aspect of pre-hospital management in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage (sICH). Haemodynamic optimisation guided by non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements is an important neuroprotective measure, as cerebral autoregulation is often absent or impaired. The accuracy and clinical relevance of invasive arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring to optimise haemodynamic management has not been established in patients with a brain insult.
methodsA retrospective clinical diagnostic accuracy study to establish the accuracy and clinical relevance of IBP-guided haemodynamic optimisation in patients with TBI or sICH. The occurrence- and clinical relevance of IBP-NIBP discrepancies in patients attended by a UK Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) between 6 January 2022 and 6 January 2024 was evaluated. Bland-Altman plots with adjustment for repeated measures were constructed to analyse disagreement in relation to absolute blood pressure values. Multivariate analysis was performed using generalised linear mixed effects regression (GLMER) models with random effects to identify predictors of disagreement. Error Grid Analysis (EGA) classified the clinical relevance of discrepancies. The primary outcome was pairwise agreement between IBP and NIBP, defined as less than 10% difference in mean arterial pressure (MAP).
resultsFor 209 patients (159 TBI and 50 sICH) 1020 concurrent IBP and NIBP measurements were available. The average [95% CI] difference in MAP was -1.4 mmHg (-3.09 to 0.27) and 2.6mmHg in TBI. Only 459 (54.7%) MAP data met criteria for pairwise agreement. Multivariate regression analysis revealed a strong association between MAP disagreement and ground emergency medical service conveyance (aOR 2.01, 95% CI 0.98-4.10). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated proportional bias, with NIBP underestimation of MAP at higher blood pressures and overestimation at lower blood pressures. EGA revealed that in 6.1% (95% CI: 4.5-7.7) of TBI and 12.5% (95% CI: 7.8-17.2) of patients with sICH pairwise disagreement was associated with a moderate to dangerous risk of over- or undertreatment.
conclusionNIBP guided pre-hospital haemodynamic management of patients with TBI or sICH is hampered by clinically relevant measurement inaccuracies in a significant proportion of patients. Pre-hospital IBP has the potential to improve early haemodynamic optimisation, especially when hypo- or hypertension is present, enabling tailored neuroprotection in the hyperacute phase.
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.