Search

We compared the accuracy and precision of the non-invasive Nexfin(®) device for determining systolic, diastolic, mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure variation, with arterial blood pressure values measured from a radial artery catheter in 19 patients following upper abdominal surgery. Measurements were taken at baseline and following fluid loading. Pooled data results of the arterial blood pressures showed no difference between the two measurement modalities. Bland-Altman analysis of pulse pressure variation showed significant differences between values obtained from the radial artery catheter and Nexfin finger cuff technology (mean (SD) 1.49 (2.09)%, p < 0.001, coefficient of variation 24%, limits of agreement -2.71% to 5.69%). The effect of volume expansion on pulse pressure variation was identical between methods (concordance correlation coefficient 0.848). We consider the Nexfin monitor system to be acceptable for use in patients after major upper abdominal surgery without major cardiovascular compromise or haemodynamic support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although arterial hypotension occurs frequently with propofol use in humans, its effects on intravascular volume and vascular capacitance are uncertain. We hypothesized that propofol decreases vascular capacitance and therefore decreases stressed volume.Methods: Cardiac output (CO) was measured using Modelflow(®) in 17 adult subjects after upper abdominal surgery. Mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) and vascular resistances were calculated using venous return curves constructed by measuring steady-state arterial and venous pressures and CO during inspiratory hold manoeuvres at increasing plateau pressures. Measurements were performed at three incremental levels of targeted blood propofol concentrations.Results: Mean blood propofol concentrations for the three targeted levels were 3.0, 4.5, and 6.5 µg ml(-1). Mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, MSFP, venous return pressure, Rv, systemic arterial resistance, and resistance of the systemic circulation decreased, stroke volume variation increased, and CO was not significantly different as propofol concentration increased.Conclusions: An increase in propofol concentration within the therapeutic range causes a decrease in vascular stressed volume without a change in CO. The absence of an effect of propofol on CO can be explained by the balance between the decrease in effective, or stressed, volume (as determined by MSFP), the decrease in resistance for venous return, and slightly improved heart function.Clinical Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR2486. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]