A Direct Assessment of Noninvasive Continuous Blood Pressure Monitoring in the Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit

• Published in: Journal of emergency nursing 2024-07, Vol.50 (4), p.503-515
• Main Authors: Hamilton, Landon D., Binns, Scott, McFann, Kim, Nudell, Nikiah, Dunn, Julie A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arterial catheter; Blood pressure; Caretakers; Continuous monitoring; Critical care; Decision making; Deterioration; Emergency services; Hypertension; Intensive care; Measurement; Medical decision making; Non-invasive; Noninvasive blood pressure; Nurses; Pharmacists; Pulse decomposition analysis; Standardization; Trauma medicine; Veins & arteries
• ISSN: 0099-1767; 1527-2966; 1527-2966
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jen.2024.03.002

Noninvasive continuous blood pressure monitoring has the potential to improve patient treatment in the hospital setting. Such noninvasive devices can be applied earlier in the treatment process to empower nurses and clinicians to react more quickly to patient deterioration with the added benefit of eliminating the risks associated with invasive monitoring. However, emerging technologies must be capable of reproducing current clinical measures for medical decision making. This study aimed to determine the usability and willingness of nurses to implement a noninvasive continuous blood pressure monitoring device. The secondary aim directly compared the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure values recorded by the device (VitalStream; CareTaker Medical LLC, Charlottesville, VA) with the “gold standard” brachial cuff and arterial line measures recorded in the emergency department and intensive care unit settings. VitalStream was similarly received by nurses in the emergency department and intensive care setting, but ultimately had greater promotion from emergency nurses. Despite some statistical similarity between measurement methodologies, all direct comparisons were found to not meet the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation 2008 and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation / European Society of Hypertension / International Organization for Standardization 2019 consensus statement criteria for acceptable blood pressure measure differences between the VitalStream and “gold standard” clinical measures. In all instances, the standard deviation of the Bland-Altman bias exceeded 8 mm Hg with less than 85% of paired differences falling within 10 mm Hg of the “gold standard.” Taken together, the tested device requires additional postprocessing for medical decision making in trauma or emergent care.