P.06 Comparison of Manual vs. Automated Haemodynamic Monitoring Systems in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory
Background: Hemodynamic monitoring is an integral part of a cardiac catheterization procedure; however it is prone to many distortions, including damping and resonance [1]. Objectives: We sought to compare damping ratio, ascending aortic pressure waveform and invasive blood pressure between Manifol...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2020-12-01
|
| Series: | Artery Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125950048/view |
| _version_ | 1818150245304893440 |
|---|---|
| author | AbdulRehman Alanezi Fayaz Mohammad Khan Taher Alotaibi Bandar Alhaddadi Fahad Alanazi Mohammad Alqahtani Jaber Alsheri Ali Masrahi Faisal Aljumah Hanan AlShamamry Ziyad Alwasel Mohammad Balghith Kamal Ayoub Ali Al Ghamdi Azra Mahmud |
| author_facet | AbdulRehman Alanezi Fayaz Mohammad Khan Taher Alotaibi Bandar Alhaddadi Fahad Alanazi Mohammad Alqahtani Jaber Alsheri Ali Masrahi Faisal Aljumah Hanan AlShamamry Ziyad Alwasel Mohammad Balghith Kamal Ayoub Ali Al Ghamdi Azra Mahmud |
| author_sort | AbdulRehman Alanezi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Hemodynamic monitoring is an integral part of a cardiac catheterization procedure; however it is prone to many distortions, including damping and resonance [1].
Objectives: We sought to compare damping ratio, ascending aortic pressure waveform and invasive blood pressure between Manifold and ACIST CVi® devices in subjects undergoing cardiac catheterization.
Methods: This prospective randomised, single-blind, cross-over study was conducted in 81 adults subjects (mean age 59.2 ± 12, 24% females) undergoing cardiac catheterization. The fast-flush test [2] was performed at the beginning of the procedure with both Manifold and ACIST. The square wave was analysed to calculate the damping coefficient. Data analyzed by JMP Pro (SAS for Windows, Version 13) p < 0.05 considered significant.
Results: The mean damping ratio was 0.63 ± 0.11 (range 0.34–0.95) with Manifold vs. 0.94 ± 0.25 (range 0.53–2.1) with ACIST, mean difference 0.30, p < 0.0001. The pressures were significantly different between the two devices; systolic −2.85 (p < 0.05); diastolic −5.2 (p < 0.0001) and mean pressure 3.5 (p < 0.01), mmHg. The inter-device BP difference showed a wide scatter; systolic, −24 to +67; diastolic, −44 to +25 and mean pressure, −24 to +54 mmHg.
Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing a manual haemdynamic monitoring system to an automated one commonly used in the cardiac cath lab. The Manifold meets the international recommendations for accurate haemodynamic monitoring, compared with an overdamped ACIST which also underestimated pressures in our study. Manifold may be the preferred device for haemodynamic monitoring, particularly patients haemodynamically unstable, with cardiomyopathies and valvular heart disease. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T13:19:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4766c79320fc4702aad04a9894108f23 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1876-4401 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T13:19:52Z |
| publishDate | 2020-12-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Artery Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-4766c79320fc4702aad04a9894108f232022-12-22T01:05:54ZengBMCArtery Research1876-44012020-12-0126Supplement 110.2991/artres.k.201209.020P.06 Comparison of Manual vs. Automated Haemodynamic Monitoring Systems in the Cardiac Catheterization LaboratoryAbdulRehman AlaneziFayaz Mohammad KhanTaher AlotaibiBandar AlhaddadiFahad AlanaziMohammad AlqahtaniJaber AlsheriAli MasrahiFaisal AljumahHanan AlShamamryZiyad AlwaselMohammad BalghithKamal AyoubAli Al GhamdiAzra MahmudBackground: Hemodynamic monitoring is an integral part of a cardiac catheterization procedure; however it is prone to many distortions, including damping and resonance [1]. Objectives: We sought to compare damping ratio, ascending aortic pressure waveform and invasive blood pressure between Manifold and ACIST CVi® devices in subjects undergoing cardiac catheterization. Methods: This prospective randomised, single-blind, cross-over study was conducted in 81 adults subjects (mean age 59.2 ± 12, 24% females) undergoing cardiac catheterization. The fast-flush test [2] was performed at the beginning of the procedure with both Manifold and ACIST. The square wave was analysed to calculate the damping coefficient. Data analyzed by JMP Pro (SAS for Windows, Version 13) p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: The mean damping ratio was 0.63 ± 0.11 (range 0.34–0.95) with Manifold vs. 0.94 ± 0.25 (range 0.53–2.1) with ACIST, mean difference 0.30, p < 0.0001. The pressures were significantly different between the two devices; systolic −2.85 (p < 0.05); diastolic −5.2 (p < 0.0001) and mean pressure 3.5 (p < 0.01), mmHg. The inter-device BP difference showed a wide scatter; systolic, −24 to +67; diastolic, −44 to +25 and mean pressure, −24 to +54 mmHg. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing a manual haemdynamic monitoring system to an automated one commonly used in the cardiac cath lab. The Manifold meets the international recommendations for accurate haemodynamic monitoring, compared with an overdamped ACIST which also underestimated pressures in our study. Manifold may be the preferred device for haemodynamic monitoring, particularly patients haemodynamically unstable, with cardiomyopathies and valvular heart disease.https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125950048/viewBlood pressure monitoringhaemodynamics |
| spellingShingle | AbdulRehman Alanezi Fayaz Mohammad Khan Taher Alotaibi Bandar Alhaddadi Fahad Alanazi Mohammad Alqahtani Jaber Alsheri Ali Masrahi Faisal Aljumah Hanan AlShamamry Ziyad Alwasel Mohammad Balghith Kamal Ayoub Ali Al Ghamdi Azra Mahmud P.06 Comparison of Manual vs. Automated Haemodynamic Monitoring Systems in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Artery Research Blood pressure monitoring haemodynamics |
| title | P.06 Comparison of Manual vs. Automated Haemodynamic Monitoring Systems in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory |
| title_full | P.06 Comparison of Manual vs. Automated Haemodynamic Monitoring Systems in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory |
| title_fullStr | P.06 Comparison of Manual vs. Automated Haemodynamic Monitoring Systems in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory |
| title_full_unstemmed | P.06 Comparison of Manual vs. Automated Haemodynamic Monitoring Systems in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory |
| title_short | P.06 Comparison of Manual vs. Automated Haemodynamic Monitoring Systems in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory |
| title_sort | p 06 comparison of manual vs automated haemodynamic monitoring systems in the cardiac catheterization laboratory |
| topic | Blood pressure monitoring haemodynamics |
| url | https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125950048/view |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT abdulrehmanalanezi p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT fayazmohammadkhan p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT taheralotaibi p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT bandaralhaddadi p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT fahadalanazi p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT mohammadalqahtani p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT jaberalsheri p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT alimasrahi p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT faisalaljumah p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT hananalshamamry p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT ziyadalwasel p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT mohammadbalghith p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT kamalayoub p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT alialghamdi p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory AT azramahmud p06comparisonofmanualvsautomatedhaemodynamicmonitoringsystemsinthecardiaccatheterizationlaboratory |