Search

We compared blood pressure (BP) values obtained with a new optical smartphone application (OptiBP™) with BP values obtained using a non-invasive automatic oscillometric brachial cuff (reference method) during the first 2 h of surveillance in a post-anesthesia care unit in patients after non-cardiac surgery. Three simultaneous BP measurements of both methods were recorded every 30 min over a 2-h period. The agreement between measurements was investigated using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses. We also evaluated the performance of the OptiBP™ using ISO81060-2:2018 standards which requires the mean of the differences ± standard deviation (SD) between both methods to be less than 5 mmHg ± 8 mmHg. Of 120 patients enrolled, 101 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean of the differences ± SD between the test and reference methods of + 1 mmHg ± 7 mmHg for mean arterial pressure (MAP), + 2 mmHg ± 11 mmHg for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), and + 1 mmHg ± 8 mmHg for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP). Error grid analysis showed that the proportions of measurement pairs in risk zones A to E were 90.3% (no risk), 9.7% (low risk), 0% (moderate risk), 0% (significant risk), 0% (dangerous risk) for MAP and 89.9%, 9.1%, 1%, 0%, 0% for SAP. We observed a good agreement between BP values obtained by the OptiBP™ system and BP values obtained with the reference method. The OptiBP™ system fulfilled the AAMI validation requirements for MAP and DAP and error grid analysis indicated that the vast majority of measurement pairs (≥ 99%) were in risk zones A and B.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04262323.

To provide information about the clinical relevance of blood pressure (BP) measurement differences between a new smartphone application (OptiBP™) and the reference method (automated oscillometric technique) using a noninvasive brachial cuff in patients admitted to the emergency department. We simultaneously recorded three BP measurements using both the reference method and the novel OptiBP™ (test method), except when the inter-arm difference was > 10 mmHg BP. Each OptiBP™ measurement required 1-min and the subsequent reference method values were compared to the values obtained with OptiBP™ using a Bland–Altman analysis and error grid analysis. Among the 110 patients recruited, OptiBP™ BP values could be collected on 61 patients (55%) and were included in the statistical analysis. The mean of differences (95% limits of agreement) between the reference method and the test method were − 0.1(− 22.5 to 22.4 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), − 0.1(− 12.9 to 12.7 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) and − 0.3(− 18.1 to 17.4 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure (MAP). The proportions of measurements in risk zones A-E were 86.9%, 13.1%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for MAP and 89.3%, 10.7%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for SAP. In this pilot study conducted in stable and awake patients admitted to the emergency department, the absolute agreement between the OptiBP™ and the reference method was moderate. However, when BP measurements were made immediately after an initial calibration, error grid analysis showed that 100% of measurement differences between the OptiBP™ and reference method were categorized as no- or low-risk treatment decisions for all patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04121624.

To provide information about the clinical relevance of blood pressure (BP) measurement differences between a new smartphone application (OptiBP™) and the reference method (automated oscillometric technique) using a noninvasive brachial cuff in patients admitted to the emergency department. We simultaneously recorded three BP measurements using both the reference method and the novel OptiBP™ (test method), except when the inter-arm difference was 10 mmHg BP. Each OptiBP™ measurement required 1-min and the subsequent reference method values were compared to the values obtained with OptiBP™ using a Bland-Altman analysis and error grid analysis. Among the 110 patients recruited, OptiBP™ BP values could be collected on 61 patients (55%) and were included in the statistical analysis. The mean of differences (95% limits of agreement) between the reference method and the test method were - 0.1(- 22.5 to 22.4 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), - 0.1(- 12.9 to 12.7 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) and - 0.3(- 18.1 to 17.4 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure (MAP). The proportions of measurements in risk zones A-E were 86.9%, 13.1%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for MAP and 89.3%, 10.7%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for SAP. In this pilot study conducted in stable and awake patients admitted to the emergency department, the absolute agreement between the OptiBP™ and the reference method was moderate. However, when BP measurements were made immediately after an initial calibration, error grid analysis showed that 100% of measurement differences between the OptiBP™ and reference method were categorized as no- or low-risk treatment decisions for all patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04121624.

Tracheal tube introducers and stylets are highly successful devices for the management of various airway scenarios. Their first-line use is advocated in many difficult airway algorithms. Although they have been used for decades, the shape and design of introducers and stylets as well as their patterns of use are constantly evolving. Our purpose is to provide the clinician with an update on these different devices. We performed a systematic literature search from 2005 until May 2015, without language restrictions. The two authors independently retrieved all studies with the keywords "bougie", "gum elastic bougie", "stylet", "airway management", "tracheal tube introducer" and "extubation catheter". Our search did yield mostly observational and retrospective studies with small case numbers. The data was synthesized into a narrative review to provide the clinician with an update on the characteristics, indications and techniques of use as well as the dangers of different intubation aids. Today, numerous tracheal tube introducers and stylets exist with different indications, ranging from general to specific situations. Anesthetists should be familiar with the different devices, their characteristics and indications in order to use the right device at the right time in the right way.