Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41464519›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Should I Target the Blood Pressure from the Arterial Line or the Cuff? A Practical Approach for Dealing with Widely Discordant Measurements.

Nicholas Zamith, Christopher Walker, Timothy Scully, William J Healy, Nicola Zetola

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical 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

5 authors.

Nicholas ZamithDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7386-629X
Christopher WalkerDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
Timothy ScullyDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
William J HealyDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4515-5041
Nicola ZetolaDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood pressure (BP) monitoring is essential in managing critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), particularly for ensuring adequate end-organ perfusion in hypotensive states. Invasive arterial catheters and noninvasive oscillometric cuffs are often used together, but discrepancies between the two methods are common. These differences can arise from technical factors (e.g., transducer leveling, cuff size and placement, arterial waveform damping) as well as patient-related factors (e.g., vasoconstriction, arrhythmias, altered arterial compliance). This creates a clinical dilemma: which measurement best reflects the patient's true perfusion pressure, and how should management be guided? This review offers a practical approach for addressing discrepancies between invasive and noninvasive BP measurements in adult hypotensive ICU patients, including those with shock requiring vasopressor support. Based on contemporary data, we propose that a difference greater than 10 mmHg in mean arterial pressure (MAP) between the two methods can serve as a pragmatic threshold to trigger structured evaluation, rather than a universal definition of clinical significance. MAP is prioritized as the key variable for assessing perfusion pressure. When a discrepancy is detected, clinicians are encouraged to integrate both measurements with clinical signs of hypoperfusion and to perform a systematic assessment of technical and physiologic contributors before deciding which value should guide treatment. We present a stepwise clinical decision-making algorithm that helps practitioners (1) recognize when a discrepancy is large enough to matter, (2) evaluate perfusion using bedside and laboratory markers, (3) identify technical or anatomic reasons for discordant readings, and (4) determine when more central arterial monitoring may be appropriate. By structuring the evaluation of discordant BP measurements, this approach aims to reduce the risk of unrecognized hypotension or overtreatment, support more consistent hemodynamic decision-making, and ultimately improve the management of critically ill, hypotensive patients.

Indexed as

arterial catheterhemodynamic monitoringnon-invasive blood pressure monitoringshock

Identifiers

PMID41464519
PMCPMC12733910

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.