Continuous noninvasive pulse wave analysis using finger cuff technologies for arterial blood pressure and cardiac output monitoring in perioperative and intensive care medicine:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Finger cuff technologies allow continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure (AP) and cardiac output/index (CO/CI) monitoring. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing finger cuff-derived AP and CO/CI measurements with invasive measurements in surgical or critically ill patients. We calculated overall random effects model-derived pooled estimates of the mean of the differences and of the percentage error (PE; CO/CI studies) with 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI), pooled 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA), Cochran's Q and I2 (for heterogeneity). Results: The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was 4.2 (2.8 to 5.62) mm Hg with pooled 95%-LOA of –14.0 to 22.5 mm Hg for mean AP (Q=230.4 [P<0.001], I2=91%). For mean AP, the mean of the differences between finger cuff technologies and the reference method was ≤5±8 mm Hg in 9/27 data sets (33%). The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was –0.13 (–0.43 to 0.18) L min−1 with pooled 95%-LOA of –2.56 to 2.23 L min−1 for CO (Q=66.7 [P<0.001], I2=90%) and 0.07 (0.01 to 0.13) L min−1 m−2 with pooled 95%-LOA of –1.20 to 1.15 L min−1 m−2 for CI (Q=5.8 [P=0.326], I2=0%). The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the PE (95%-CI) was 43 (37 to 49)% (Q=48.6 [P<0.001], I2=63%). In 4/19 data sets (21%) the PE was ≤30%, and in 10/19 data sets (53%) it was ≤45%. Conclusions: Study heterogeneity was high. Several studies showed interchangeability between AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods. However, the pooled results of this meta-analysis indicate that AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods are not interchangeable in surgical or critically ill patients. Clinical trial number: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019119266