Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40841968›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025

Continuous versus intermittent noninvasive blood pressure measurement in patients with shock in prehospital emergency medicine - a single-center prospective pilot trial.

Stephan Katzenschlager, Raphael Heck, Nikolai Kaltschmidt, Frank Weilbacher, Markus A Weigand, Erik Popp, Maximilian Dietrich

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Stephan KatzenschlagerMedical Faculty Heidelberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Raphael HeckMedical Faculty Heidelberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nikolai KaltschmidtMedical Faculty Heidelberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Frank WeilbacherMedical Faculty Heidelberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus A WeigandMedical Faculty Heidelberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Erik PoppMedical Faculty Heidelberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Maximilian DietrichMedical Faculty Heidelberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. maximilian.dietrich@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShock is a critical and potentially life-threatening clinical state characterized by circulatory insufficiency and impaired micro- and macrocirculation. Rapid detection and initiation of therapy are essential for patient outcomes. In prehospital emergency medicine, assessment tools are limited, and intermittent noninvasive blood pressure (iNIBP) monitoring is the current standard of care. Recent findings suggest that this method may miss episodes of relevant hypotension. Continuous noninvasive blood pressure (cNIBP) and tissue oxygenation (StO

methodsThis single-center prospective pilot trial compared a cNIBP system with standard iNIBP measurements in physician-staffed prehospital care. The study was conducted in the Rhine-Neckar region between May and December 2023. The Edwards HemoSphere system, including ClearSight for cNIBP and ForeSight for StO

resultsIn total, 25 patients were included, resulting in 100 simultaneous measurements. iNIBP readings exceeded cNIBP measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP) by 10.77 mmHg (p < 0.01). There were further significant differences for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, with higher values for iNIBP measurements. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated systemic bias (MAP bias - 10.25) with wide LoA (-43.52 to 22.21), indicating poor interchangeability. In three out of 25 cases, standard intermittent blood pressure measurements failed to detect hypotension, although cNIBP showed MAP values below 60 mmHg.

conclusionOur pilot data show cNIBP and iNIBP values differ significantly, with clinical implications, potentially improving hemodynamic instability detection. However, as this is preliminary, more research on system reliability and benefits of enhanced monitoring is needed.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS ID DRKS00031867) on 22.05.2023.

Indexed as

Blood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationEmergency Medical ServicesShockAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesBlood pressure monitorsDiagnostic techniques and proceduresEmergency medical servicesMicrocirculationShock

Identifiers

PMID40841968
PMCPMC12369113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.