Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement between high-definition oscillometry (HDO) used on the metatarsus or tail base with invasive arterial blood pressures measured in the dorsal pedal artery in anaesthetised cheetahs.
METHODS: Prospective clinical study.
METHODS: A group of 13 captive adult cheetahs.
METHODS: Cheetahs were immobilised with medetomidine (32-45 μg kg-1) and tiletamine/zolazepam (0.93-1.39 mg kg-1) administered intramuscularly, and anaesthesia was maintained with either isoflurane in oxygen or continuous propofol infusion. Invasive blood pressure was measured via a 20 gauge intra-arterial catheter in the dorsal pedal artery in the metatarsus and used as a reference method for pressures simultaneously estimated using HDO on the contralateral metatarsus and tail base. Bland-Altman plots (for repeated measurements) and criteria defined by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) were used to compare agreement according to the anatomical location of the cuff, the anaesthetic maintenance agent and magnitude of the blood pressure.
RESULTS: A total of 147 paired measurements were obtained with HDO on the metatarsus and 135 on the tail. Agreement with invasive pressures was better when HDO was used on the tail (rather than on the metatarsus) with all ACVIM criteria being met. Mean bias (a positive bias meaning that HDO overestimated the invasively measured pressures) ± standard deviation of differences for systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures were -7.0 ± 13.9, 4.2 ±12.1 and 4.6 ±11.2 mmHg, respectively, for HDO on the tail, and -11.9 ±15.1, 2.8 ±16.5 and 2.1 ±13.2 mmHg, respectively, for HDO on the metatarsus. Agreement was better during isoflurane anaesthesia than propofol, and at lower blood pressures than at higher.
CONCLUSIONS: When used on the tail base of anaesthetised cheetahs, HDO met the ACVIM validation criteria for a noninvasive device, as compared to invasively measured pressures in the dorsal pedal artery.
METHODS: Prospective clinical study.
METHODS: A group of 13 captive adult cheetahs.
METHODS: Cheetahs were immobilised with medetomidine (32-45 μg kg-1) and tiletamine/zolazepam (0.93-1.39 mg kg-1) administered intramuscularly, and anaesthesia was maintained with either isoflurane in oxygen or continuous propofol infusion. Invasive blood pressure was measured via a 20 gauge intra-arterial catheter in the dorsal pedal artery in the metatarsus and used as a reference method for pressures simultaneously estimated using HDO on the contralateral metatarsus and tail base. Bland-Altman plots (for repeated measurements) and criteria defined by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) were used to compare agreement according to the anatomical location of the cuff, the anaesthetic maintenance agent and magnitude of the blood pressure.
RESULTS: A total of 147 paired measurements were obtained with HDO on the metatarsus and 135 on the tail. Agreement with invasive pressures was better when HDO was used on the tail (rather than on the metatarsus) with all ACVIM criteria being met. Mean bias (a positive bias meaning that HDO overestimated the invasively measured pressures) ± standard deviation of differences for systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures were -7.0 ± 13.9, 4.2 ±12.1 and 4.6 ±11.2 mmHg, respectively, for HDO on the tail, and -11.9 ±15.1, 2.8 ±16.5 and 2.1 ±13.2 mmHg, respectively, for HDO on the metatarsus. Agreement was better during isoflurane anaesthesia than propofol, and at lower blood pressures than at higher.
CONCLUSIONS: When used on the tail base of anaesthetised cheetahs, HDO met the ACVIM validation criteria for a noninvasive device, as compared to invasively measured pressures in the dorsal pedal artery.
摘要：
目的：评估在high骨或尾基部使用的高清示波法（HDO）与在麻醉猎豹的足背动脉中测量的侵入性动脉血压之间的一致性。
方法：前瞻性临床研究。
方法：一组13只圈养成年猎豹。
方法：肌肉注射美托咪定（32-45μgkg-1）和替他明/唑拉西泮（0.93-1.39mgkg-1）固定猎豹，和麻醉维持在氧气或连续丙泊酚输注异氟烷。通过20号动脉内导管在meta足背动脉中测量有创血压，并将其用作参考方法，用于使用HDO在对侧meta骨和尾基部同时估算压力。Bland-Altman图（用于重复测量）和美国兽医内科学院（ACVIM）定义的标准用于根据袖带的解剖位置比较协议，麻醉维持剂和血压的大小。
结果：使用HDO在meta骨上获得了总共147个配对的测量结果，在尾巴上获得了135个。当在符合所有ACVIM标准的情况下，在尾部（而不是在meta骨）使用HDO时，与侵入性压力的一致性更好。平均偏差（正偏差意味着HDO高估了侵入性测量的压力）±收缩压差异的标准偏差，舒张压和平均动脉压为-7.0±13.9，4.2±12.1和4.6±11.2mmHg，分别,对于尾部的HDO，和-11.9±15.1、2.8±16.5和2.1±13.2mmHg，分别,hado骨。异氟醚麻醉期间的一致性优于丙泊酚，在较低的血压比在较高的血压。
结论：当用于麻醉猎豹的尾部时，HDO符合非侵入性设备的ACVIM验证标准，与侵入性测量的足背动脉压力相比。
方法：前瞻性临床研究。
方法：一组13只圈养成年猎豹。
方法：肌肉注射美托咪定（32-45μgkg-1）和替他明/唑拉西泮（0.93-1.39mgkg-1）固定猎豹，
结果：使用HDO在meta骨上获得了总共147个配对的测量结果，在尾巴上获得了135个。
结论：当用于麻醉猎豹的尾部时，
