Background: Cerebral aneurysm coil embolization is often performed under general anesthesia to prevent patient movement and sudden high blood pressure. However, the optimal anesthetic agent remains uncertain. This study aimed to determine whether maintaining anesthesia with remimazolam in patients undergoing coil embolization could avoid hypotension or hypertension compared to sevoflurane. Methods: Thirty-three adult patients participated in this single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients in Group R were induced and maintained with remimazolam, whereas those in Group S received propofol and sevoflurane. Results: The use of remimazolam significantly reduced the incidence of intraoperative hypotension events (33.3% vs. 80.0%; p = 0.010) but did not change the incidence of hypertension events (66.7% vs. 73.3%; p = 0.690). Patients in Group R maintained a significantly higher range of maximal (100.2 ± 16.6 vs. 88.1 ± 13.5 mmHg; p = 0.037) and minimal (69.4 ± 6.6 vs. 63.4 ± 4.8 mmHg; p = 0.008) mean arterial blood pressure than those in Group S during the intervention. Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate the feasibility of maintaining general anesthesia with remimazolam in patients undergoing cerebral aneurysm coil embolization. The findings suggest that remimazolam may maintains better hemodynamic stability, reducing the incidence of hypotensive events without compromising patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a ring-type cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring device has been developed. This study was a prospective, single arm, first-in-human pivotal trial to evaluate accuracy of BP measurement by the new device.
METHODS: The ring-type smart wearable monitoring device measures photoplethysmography signals from the proximal phalanx and transmits the data wirelessly to a connected smartphone. For the BP comparison, a cuff was worn on the arm to check the reference BP by auscultatory method, while the test device was worn on the finger of the opposite arm to measure BP simultaneously. Measurements were repeated for up to three sets each on the left and right arms. The primary outcome measure was mean difference and standard deviation of BP differences between the test device and the reference readings.
RESULTS: We obtained 526 sets of systolic BP (SBP) and 513 sets of diastolic BP (DBP) from 89 subjects, with ranges of 80 to 175 mmHg and 43 to 122 mmHg for SBP and DBP, respectively. In sample-wise comparison, the mean difference between the test device and the reference was 0.16 ± 5.90 mmHg (95% limits of agreement [LOA], -11.41, 11.72) in SBP and -0.07 ± 4.68 (95% LOA, -9.26, 9.10) in DBP. The test device showed a strong correlation with the reference for SBP (r = 0.94, P < 0.001) and DBP (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). There were consistent results in subject-wise comparison.
CONCLUSIONS: The new ring-type BP measuring device showed a good correlation for SBP and DBP with minimal bias compared with an auscultatory method.

Based on the controversy surrounding pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) in surgical patients, we investigated the interchangeability of cardiac index (CI) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) measurements between ClearSight™ and PAC during living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT).
This prospective study included consecutively selected LDLT patients. ClearSight™-based CI and SVR measurements were compared with those from PAC at seven LDLT-stage time points. ClearSight™-based systolic (SAP), mean (MAP), and diastolic (DAP) arterial pressures were also compared with those from femoral arterial catheterization (FAC). For the comparison and analysis of ClearSight™ and the reference method, Bland-Altman analysis was used to analyze accuracy while polar and four-quadrant plots were used to analyze the trending ability.
From 27 patients, 189 pairs of ClearSight™ and reference values were analyzed. The CI and SVR performance errors (PEs) exhibited poor accuracy between the two methods (51.52 and 51.73%, respectively) in the Bland-Altman analysis. CI and SVR also exhibited unacceptable trending abilities in both the polar and four-quadrant plot analyses. SAP, MAP, and DAP PEs between the two methods displayed favorable accuracy (24.28, 21.18, and 26.26%, respectively). SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable trending ability in the four-quadrant plot between the two methods, but not in the polar plot analyses.
During LDLT, CI and SVR demonstrated poor interchangeability, while SAP and MAP exhibited acceptable interchangeability between ClearSight™ and FAC.

The aim of this study was to analyze the current situation and risk factors of multi-drug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection in Neuro-intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and to develop the risk predict model. The data was collected from the patients discharged from Neuro-ICU of grade-A tertiary hospital at Guizhou province from January 2018 to April 2020. Binary Logistics regression was used to analyze the data. The model was examined by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). The grouped data was used to verify the sensitivity and specificity of the model. A total of 297 patients were included, 131 patients infected with MDRO. The infection rate was 44.11%. The results of binary Logistics regression showed that tracheal intubation, artery blood pressure monitoring, fever, antibiotics, pneumonia were independent risk factors for MDRO infection in Neuro-ICU (P < 0.05), AUC = 0.887. The sensitivity and specificity of ROC curve was 86.3% and 76.9%. The risk prediction model had a good predictive effect on the risk of MDRO infection in Neuro ICU, which can evaluate the risk and provide reference for preventive treatment and nursing intervention.

暂无摘要。

In this preliminary study, we compared daytime blood pressure (BP) measurements performed by a commercially available cuffless-and continual-BP monitor (Aktiia monitor, Neuchâtel, Switzerland) and a traditional ambulatory BP monitor (ABPM; Dyasis 3, Novacor, Paris, France) from 52 patients enrolled in a 12-week cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program (Neuchâtel, Switzerland). Daytime (9am-9pm) systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP from 7-day averaged data from Aktiia monitor were compared to 1-day averaged BP data from ABPM. No significant differences were found between the Aktiia monitor and the ABPM for SBP (μ ± σ [95% confidence interval]: 1.6 ± 10.5 [-1.5, 4.6] mmHg, P = 0.306; correlation [R2]: 0.70; ± 10/ ± 15 mmHg agreements: 60%, 84%). Marginally non-significant bias was found for DBP (-2.2 ± 8.0 [-4.5, 0.1] mmHg, P = 0.058; R2: 0.66; ±10/±15 mmHg agreements: 78%, 96%). These intermediate results show that daytime BP measurements using the Aktiia monitor generate data comparable to that of an ABPM monitor.

Cuffless wearable devices are currently being developed for long-term monitoring of blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension and in apparently healthy people. This study evaluated the feasibility and measurement stability of smartwatch-based cuffless BP monitoring in real-world conditions. Users of the first smartwatch-based cuffless BP monitor approved in Korea (Samsung Galaxy Watch) were invited to upload their data from using the device for 4 weeks post calibration. A total of 760 participants (mean age 43.7 ± 11.9, 80.3% men) provided 35,797 BP readings (average monitoring 22 ± 4 days [SD]; average readings 47 ± 42 per participant [median 36]). Each participant obtained 1.5 ± 1.3 readings/day and 19.7% of the participants obtained measurements every day. BP showed considerable variability, mainly depending on the day and time of the measurement. There was a trend towards higher BP levels on Mondays than on other days of the week and on workdays than in weekends. BP readings taken between 00:00 and 04:00 tended to be the lowest, whereas those between 12:00 and 16:00 the highest. The average pre-post calibration error for systolic BP (difference in 7-day BP before and after calibration), was 6.8 ± 5.6 mmHg, and was increased with higher systolic BP levels before calibration. Smartwatch-based cuffless BP monitoring is feasible for out-of-office monitoring in the real-world setting. The stability of BP measurement post calibration and the standardization and optimal time interval for recalibration need further investigation.

暂无摘要。

Oscillometric, non-invasive blood pressure measurement (NIBP) is the first choice of blood pressure monitoring in the majority of low and moderate risk surgeries. In patients with morbid obesity, however, it is subject to several limitations. The aim was to compare arterial pressure monitoring by NIBP and a non-invasive finger-cuff technology (Nexfin®) with the gold-standard invasive arterial pressure (IAP).
In this secondary analysis of a prospective observational, single centre cohort study, systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were measured at 16 defined perioperative time points including posture changes, fluid bolus administration and pneumoperitoneum (PP) in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Absolute arterial pressures by NIBP, Nexfin® and IAP were compared using correlation and Bland Altman analyses. Interchangeability was defined by a mean difference ≤ 5 mmHg (SD ≤8 mmHg). Percentage error (PE) was calculated as an additional statistical estimate. For hemodynamic trending, concordance rates were analysed according to the Critchley criterion.
Sixty patients (mean body mass index of 49.2 kg/m2) were enrolled and data from 56 finally analysed. Pooled blood pressure values of all time points showed a significant positive correlation for both NIPB and Nexfin® versus IAP. Pooled PE for NIBP versus IAP was 37% (SAP), 35% (DAP) and 30% (MAP), for Nexfin versus IAP 23% (SAP), 26% (DAP) and 22% (MAP). Correlation of MAP was best and PE lowest before induction of anesthesia for NIBP versus IAP (r = 0.72; PE 24%) and after intraoperative fluid bolus administration for Nexfin® versus IAP (r = 0.88; PE: 17.2%). Concordance of MAP trending was 90% (SAP 85%, DAP 89%) for NIBP and 91% (SAP 90%, DAP 86%) for Nexfin®. MAP trending was best during intraoperative ATP positioning for NIBP (97%) and at induction of anesthesia for Nexfin® (97%).
As compared with IAP, interchangeability of absolute pressure values could neither be shown for NIBP nor Nexfin®, however, NIBP showed poorer overall correlation and precision. Overall trending ability was generally high with Nexfin® surpassing NIBP. Nexfin® may likely render individualized decision-making in the management of different hemodynamic stresses during laparoscopic bariatric surgery, particularly where NIBP cannot be reliably established.
The non-interventional, observational study was registered retrospectively at ( NCT03184285 ) on June 12, 2017.

We compared blood pressure (BP) values obtained with a new optical smartphone application (OptiBP™) with BP values obtained using a non-invasive automatic oscillometric brachial cuff (reference method) during the first 2 h of surveillance in a post-anesthesia care unit in patients after non-cardiac surgery. Three simultaneous BP measurements of both methods were recorded every 30 min over a 2-h period. The agreement between measurements was investigated using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses. We also evaluated the performance of the OptiBP™ using ISO81060-2:2018 standards which requires the mean of the differences ± standard deviation (SD) between both methods to be less than 5 mmHg ± 8 mmHg. Of 120 patients enrolled, 101 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean of the differences ± SD between the test and reference methods of + 1 mmHg ± 7 mmHg for mean arterial pressure (MAP), + 2 mmHg ± 11 mmHg for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), and + 1 mmHg ± 8 mmHg for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP). Error grid analysis showed that the proportions of measurement pairs in risk zones A to E were 90.3% (no risk), 9.7% (low risk), 0% (moderate risk), 0% (significant risk), 0% (dangerous risk) for MAP and 89.9%, 9.1%, 1%, 0%, 0% for SAP. We observed a good agreement between BP values obtained by the OptiBP™ system and BP values obtained with the reference method. The OptiBP™ system fulfilled the AAMI validation requirements for MAP and DAP and error grid analysis indicated that the vast majority of measurement pairs (≥ 99%) were in risk zones A and B.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04262323.