Professional Documents
Culture Documents
URRENT
C
OPINION
Purpose of review
The present review aims to summarize literature on the accuracy of the finger cuff method to measure
cardiac output (CO) and blood pressure, its ability to track hemodynamic changes, and to predict fluid
responsiveness.
Recent findings
Finger cuff is an easy-to-use hemodynamic monitoring technique. Different devices are currently available,
which provide continuous arterial blood pressure (Finapress), whereas only ClearSight (previously known
as Nexfin; BMEYE) provides an estimate of CO. In most studies, the criteria for clinical interchangeability
(for CO) were not met, when compared with the currently used invasive monitoring systems such as
uncalibrated CO via a radial artery line, and calibrated CO either via a pulmonary artery catheter or a
femoral artery catheter connected to the PiCCO (Pulsion Medical Systems) or VolumeView (Edwards
Lifesciences) devices. In particular, ClearSight obtained CO seems to be less accurate in patients with a
low CO. However, in most patients, ClearSight is able to track hemodynamic changes induced by a fluid
challenge or passive leg raising test. We will discuss in this review the relevant literature with regard to
validation of the finger cuff technique for both arterial blood pressure and CO.
Summary
The finger cuff method provides a reasonable estimate of CO and blood pressure, which does not meet the
criteria for clinical interchangeability with the currently used invasive devices.
Keywords
blood pressure, cardiac output, finger cuff, hemodynamic monitoring, noninvasive, thermodilution
INTRODUCTION
Global hemodynamics may change on a minute-tominute basis in critically ill patients. Therefore,
continuous hemodynamic monitoring is of paramount importance [1]. In addition, continuous
hemodynamic monitoring is crucial for real-time
monitoring of the hemodynamic effects of ongoing
therapeutic interventions. Many intensive care
physicians use either a pulmonary artery catheter
(PAC) in combination with an arterial line or a
device based on transpulmonary thermodilution
with either the PiCCO system (PiCCO2; Pulsion
Medical Systems, Munich, Germany) or the VolumeView (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California,
USA) as golden standard to guide fluid resuscitation
and to adjust inotropic and vasopressive agents
[2,3 ]. However, both PiCCO and PAC require invasive catheters and therefore increase the risk of
iatrogenic complications such as pneumothorax,
&&
www.co-criticalcare.com
bleeding, catheter sepsis, and deep venous thrombosis [4]. Moreover, the setup of both systems is time
consuming, they are cost intensive, and cannot be
used prehospital or on a regular ward. Currently,
different devices are available using the finger cuff
method to measure arterial blood pressure continuously (CNAP, FinaPress, ClearSight), whereas some
of these devices also have the possibility to monitor
The accuracy of noninvasive cardiac output and pressure measurements with finger cuff Ameloot et al.
KEY POINTS
The finger cuff method provides a reasonable estimate
of cardiac output and blood pressure, which does not
meet the criteria for clinical interchangeability with the
currently used invasive devices.
ClearSight can be applied for an initial quick
hemodynamic assessment as a bridge to installation of
a more advanced invasive monitoring system.
ClearSight showed some accuracy to track the
hemodynamic changes induced by fluid loading or
pharmacological interventions.
ClearSight obtained SVV/PPV shows a correlation with
PiCCO as predictors of volume responsiveness.
built-in photoelectric plethysmograph and an automatic algorithm (Physiocal). The resulting finger
arterial pressure waveform is reconstructed into a
brachial artery pressure waveform by a generalized
algorithm. CO is calculated by a pulse contour
method (CO-TREK), using the measured systolic
pressure time integral and the hearts afterload
determined from the Windkessel model [7].
&
1070-5295 Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.co-criticalcare.com
233
234
www.co-criticalcare.com
Scientific World
Journal 2013
Anesth Analg
2013
Acta Anesth
Scand 2013
Anesthesia 2012
Br J Anesth 2012
Anaesthesia 2010
BMC Anesthesiol
2009
BubenekTurconi
Fischer
Broch
Chen
Fischer
Monnet
Bogert
Stover
[15]
[20]
[11]
[12]
[16]
[14]
[18]
[17]
PAC
PAC
PiCCO
PiCCO
TEE
PiCCO
PiCCO
PAC
PiCCO
&
[8]
[5 ]
PAC
ICU, surgical
ICU, postcardiac
ICU, mixed
ICU, postcardiac
ICU, noncardiac
ICU, postcardiac
ICU, postcardiac
ICU, mixed
ICU, postcardiac
OR, elective
cardiac
Golden
standard Setting
365
10
25
38
44
25
40
37
28
45
20
53
Bias
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.2 2.3 0.91
5.5 1.4
6.8
NA
0.71
0.10
0.33
0.23
0.44
0.4
0.02
0.88
0.2
0.21
0.05
0.4
0.26
80
25
76
120
66
80
74
47
135
20
371
29
29
57
50
37
24
56
39
36
39
58
PE
1.22
44
1.15 41.3
1.05
0.81
2.00
1.2
0.86
0.6
1.29
1.05
1.16
1.1
1.5
SD
bias
0.67
0.01
1.18 56
0.14
1.35 55
0.31 1.70 62
After phenylefrine
0.74
5.4 1.7 0.92
5.3
0.9
NA
NA
Baseline
After CPBP
5
4.3
After fluid
Before CPBP
4.1
Baseline
0.7
5.6 1.3
After fluid
1.05
0.75
0.2
0.2
0.01
0.4
0.00
0.1
38
33
26
23
0.83 42
0.9
0.7
0.5
1.45 58
1.12 55
1.1
1.00 39
8h
Baseline
0.4
0.51
4h
5.4
1 day postoperative
SD
bias PE
5.5
Before extubation
Bias
0h
6.0
4.9
Arrival ICU
After CPBP
After protamine
4.2
6.0
Before CPBP
4.3
Average
CO
Baseline
Condition
CO, cardiac output; CPBP, cardiopulmonary bypass; OR, operating room; PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; PE, percentage error; R, Pearson correlation coefficient; SD, standard deviation; TEE, transesophageal
echocardiography.
Weighted
average
Statistics
Ameloot
&
Ref
Hofhuizen
Maass
Cardiopulmonary monitoring
The accuracy of noninvasive cardiac output and pressure measurements with finger cuff Ameloot et al.
&
&
&
&
1070-5295 Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.co-criticalcare.com
235
236
www.co-criticalcare.com
Br J Anaesth 2013
Minerva Anestesiol
2013
Hohn et al.
Broch et al.
Radial artery
Anesthesiology 2012
Martina et al.
Nowak et al.
Stover et al.
ICU, mixed
ICU, surgical
ER, mixed
OR, cardiac
ICU, postcardiac
504
10
40
50
44
41
38
50
25
29
20
112
45
(n)
77 13
101 27
63 9
74 12
77 17
77 16
71 13
76 12
84 9
NA
82 11
83 17
(mmHg)
Average
MAP
2
4.2
6
4.6
-2.6
0.82
0.79
2.1
4.3
-2
0.81 -2.05
0.96
0.87
NA
NA
0.53 10.9
0.7
18
PE
0.77
22
NA
NA
26
34
39
NA
NA
5.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22
15
PE
20
30
19
17
0.7
NA
0.83
0.96
9.4
22
0.73
15
6.3
NA
23
14
NA
NA
NA
4.9
NA
29
NA
NA
32
13
25
-8.9
-0.2
NA
13
NA
NA
NA
0.75 -1.24
0.93
0.8
NA
NA
0.48
NA
2.1 13.1
22
0.73 0.6
NA
0.8
5.7
NA
38
24
25
NA
NA
47
NA
9.2
NA
NA
23
17
PE
7.6
29
8.1 27.7
NA
15
6.5
NA
13.5
NA
5.2
6.8
NA
SD
Bias bias
0.74 -9.4
0.77
2.7 11.1 NA
NA
NA
8.3 13.5
SD
Bias bias
10
13
15
5.1
4.7
SD
Bias bias
0.76 -6.9
NA
NA
0.94
0.77
80
344
9000
220
41
76
100
117
NA
20
765
225
(n)
Patients Pairs
AAMI, Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; MAP, mean arterial pressure; OR, operating room; PE, percentage error; SD, standard deviation.
Weighted
average
Statistics
Br J Anaesth 2012
Fischer et al.
[11] PiCCO
Garnier et al.
OR, cardiac
ICU, surgical
ICU, post-LVAD
ICU, postcardiac
ICU medical
surgicalburns
OR elective
Setting
Br J Anaesth 2012
Monnet et al.
[9]
ASAIO J 2014
Martina et al.
Radial artery
Vos et al.
Ameloot et al.
PiCCO
[6]
Authors
Minerva Anestesiol
2014
Br J Anaesth 2014
Golden
Ref standard
Table 2. Overview of studies on the validation of blood pressure measurements by ClearSight (according to AAMI criteria)
Cardiopulmonary monitoring
The accuracy of noninvasive cardiac output and pressure measurements with finger cuff Ameloot et al.
&
90
1.0
&
0.8
135
0.6
0.4
45
CO (%)
0.2
&
&
&
180
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.2 0.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
1.0
0.4
0.6
225
315
0.8
1.0
270
1070-5295 Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.co-criticalcare.com
237
Cardiopulmonary monitoring
CONCLUSION
The finger cuff method provides a reasonable estimate of CO and blood pressure, which does not meet
the criteria for clinical interchangeability with the
currently used invasive devices. More studies are
needed to identify specific patient populations that
could benefit from the use of this promising and
totally noninvasive technique.
238
www.co-criticalcare.com
Acknowledgements
None.
Financial support and sponsorship
The present study was not financially supported.
Conflicts of interest
MLNGM is a member of the medical advisory board of
Pulsion Medical Systems. The remaining authors have no
conflicts of interest.
The accuracy of noninvasive cardiac output and pressure measurements with finger cuff Ameloot et al.
17. Bubenek-Turconi SI, Craciun M, Miclea I, Perel A. Noninvasive continuous
cardiac output by the Nexfin before and after preload-modifying maneuvers: a
comparison with intermittent thermodilution cardiac output. Anesth Analg
2013; 117:366372.
18. Fischer MO, Coucoravas J, Truong J, et al. Assessment of changes in cardiac
index and fluid responsiveness: a comparison of Nexfin and transpulmonary
thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2013; 57:704712.
19. Maass SW, Roekaerts PM, Lance MD. Cardiac output measurement by
&
bioimpedance and noninvasive pulse contour analysis compared with the
continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution technique. J Cardiothorac Vasc
Anesth 2014; 28:534539.
The largest study so far, including fifty-three consecutive patients scheduled for
elective, nonemergent cardiac surgery that showed that Nexfin lacked reliability
and trending ability and did not provide consistent results.
20. Bogert LW, Wesseling KH, Schraa O, et al. Pulse contour cardiac output
derived from noninvasive arterial pressure in cardiovascular disease. Anaesthesia 2010; 65:11191125.
21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between
two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 158476:307310.
22. Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision
statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit
Comput 1999; 15:8591.
23. Vos JJ, Poterman M, Mooyaart EA, et al. Comparison of continuous noninvasive finger arterial pressure monitoring with conventional intermittent
automated arm arterial pressure measurement in patients under general
anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2014; 113:6774.
24. Broch O, Bein B, Gruenewald M, et al. A comparison of continuous noninvasive arterial pressure with invasive radial and femoral pressure in patients
undergoing cardiac surgery. Minerva Anestesiol 2013; 79:248256.
25. Garnier RP, van der Spoel AG, Sibarani-Ponsen R, et al. Level of agreement
between Nexfin noninvasive arterial pressure with invasive arterial pressure
measurements in children. Br J Anaesth 2012; 109:609615.
26. Nowak RM, Sen A, Garcia AJ, et al. Noninvasive continuous or intermittent
blood pressure and heart rate patient monitoring in the ED. Am J Emerg Med
2011; 29:782789.
27. ANSI/AAMI. American National Standard for Manual, Electronic or Automated
Sphygmomanometers. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, 2002.
28. Taton O, Fagnoul D, De Backer D, Vincent JL. Evaluation of cardiac output in
intensive care using a noninvasive arterial pulse contour technique (Nexfin(1)) compared with echocardiography. Anaesthesia 2013; 68:917923.
29. Critchley LA, Lee A, Ho AM. A critical review of the ability of continuous
cardiac output monitors to measure trends in cardiac output. Anesth Analg
2010; 111:11801192.
30. Marik PE, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Hemodynamic parameters to guide fluid
therapy. Ann Intensive Care 2011; 1:1.
31. Yang X, Du B. Does pulse pressure variation predict fluid responsiveness in
critically ill patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2014;
18:650.
32. Lansdorp B, Ouweneel D, de Keijzer A, et al. Noninvasive measurement of
pulse pressure variation and systolic pressure variation using a finger cuff
corresponds with intra-arterial measurement. Br J Anaesth 2011; 107:540
545.
33. Nowak RM, Sen A, Garcia AJ, et al. The inability of emergency physicians to
adequately clinically estimate the underlying hemodynamic profiles of acutely
ill patients. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30:954960.
34. Peyton PJ, Chong SW. Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output
during surgery and critical care. Anesthesiology 2010; 113:220235.
1070-5295 Copyright 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.co-criticalcare.com
239