Agreement between two oscillometric blood pressure technologies and invasively measured arterial pressure in the dog

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesTo compare two commonly used oscillometric technologies for obtaining noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurements and to determine if there is a difference in agreement between these systems and invasive blood pressure (IBP) measurements.Study designProspective, experimental study.AnimalsTwenty adult laboratory dogs.MethodsEach dog was anesthetized and its median caudal artery catheterized for IBP monitoring. An NIBP cuff was placed in the middle third of the antebrachium and attached to either monitor-1 or monitor-2. Four pairs of concurrent NIBP and IBP measurements were recorded with each monitor. Agreement between IBP and NIBP measurements was explored using Bland–Altman analysis, as well as the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) guidelines for the validation of NIBP devices.ResultsBoth NIBP technologies produced results that met the ACVIM and AAMI guidelines for the validation of NIBP devices. For monitor-1, analyses of agreement showed biases of 0.2 mmHg [95% limits of agreement (LoA) -11.8 to 12.3 mmHg] in systolic arterial pressure (SAP) values, -2.6 mmHg (95% LoA -14.4 to 9.1 mmHg) in diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) values, and -2.5 mmHg (95% LoA -12.7 to 7.3 mmHg) in mean arterial pressure (MAP) values. For monitor-2, analyses of agreement showed biases of 3.4 mmHg (95% LoA -8.7 to 15.5 mmHg) in SAP values, 2.2 mmHg (95% LoA -6.6 to 10.9 mmHg) in DAP values, and 1.6 mmHg (95% LoA -5.9 to 8.9 mmHg) in MAP values.Conclusions and clinical relevanceMulti-function monitors can contain components from various manufacturers. Clinicians should consider whether these have been validated in the species to be monitored. Both of the technologies studied here seem appropriate for use in dogs