Evaluation of a novel automated non-invasive pulse pressure variation algorithm

• Published in: Computers in biology and medicine Vol. 43; no. 10; pp. 1583 - 1589
• Main Authors: Schmid, Martin, Prettenthaler, Helga, Weger, Christian, Smolle, Karl-Heinz
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Ltd 01.10.2013; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Adult; Agreements; Algorithms; Automation; Automation - instrumentation; Automation - methods; Bias; Blood pressure; Blood Pressure - physiology; Blood Pressure Determination - instrumentation; Blood Pressure Determination - methods; Catheters; CNAP® Monitor 500; Continuous non-invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring; Critical Illness; Female; Fingers & toes; Fingers - blood supply; Fingers - physiology; Fluid management; Heart attacks; Humans; Intensive care; Internal Medicine; Male; Mechanical ventilation; Middle Aged; Monitoring, Physiologic - instrumentation; Monitoring, Physiologic - methods; Other; Pulse pressure variation; Reproducibility of Results; Respiration, Artificial; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; Software; Standard deviation; Vascular unloading; CNAP ® Monitor 500; Vascular unloading; Continuous non-invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring; Mechanical ventilation; Pulse pressure variation; Fluid management; CNAP® Monitor 500; CNAP(®) Monitor 500
• ISSN: 0010-4825; 1879-0534
• DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2013.07.020

Abstract In mechanically ventilated patients, Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) has been shown to be a useful parameter to guide fluid management. We evaluated a real-time automated PPV-algorithm by comparing it to manually calculated PPV-values. In 10 critically ill patients, blood pressure was measured invasively (IBP) and non-invasively (CNAP® Monitor, CNSystems Medizintechnik, Austria). PPV was determined manually and compared to automated PPV values: PPVmanIBP vs. PPVautoIBP was −0.19±1.65% (mean bias±standard deviation), PPVmanCNAP vs. PPVautoCNAP was −1.02±2.03% and PPVautoCNAP vs. PPVmanIBP was −2.10±3.14%, suggesting that the automated CNAP® PPV-algorithm works well on both blood pressure waveforms but needs further clinical evaluation.