Comparison of invasive and oscillometric blood pressure measurement techniques in anesthetized sheep, goats, and cattle.

Objective To determine the level of agreement between an oscillometric (O- NIBP) and an invasive method ( IBP) of monitoring arterial blood pressure ( ABP) in anesthetized sheep, goats, and cattle. Study design Prospective clinical study. Animals Twenty sheep and goats, 20 cattle weighing <150 kg body weight, and 20 cattle weighing >150 kg body weight. Methods Animals were anesthetized and systolic ABP ( SABP), mean ABP ( MABP), and diastolic ABP ( DABP) were measured using IBP and O- NIBP. Differences between IBP and O- NIBP, and 95% limits of agreement ( LOA) between SABP, MABP, and DABP values were assessed by the Bland-Altman method. Results Mean difference ± standard deviation (range) between SABP, DABP, and MABP measurements in sheep and goats was 0 ± 16 (−57 to 38) mmHg, 13 ± 16 (−37 to 70) mmHg, and 8 ± 13 (−34 to 54) mmHg, respectively. Mean difference between SABP, DABP, and MABP measurements in small cattle was 0 ± 19 (−37 to 37) mmHg, 6 ± 18 (−77 to 48) mmHg, and 4 ± 16 (−73 to 48) mmHg, respectively. Mean difference between SABP, DABP, and MABP measurements in large cattle was −18 ± 32 (−107 to 71) mmHg, 7 ± 29 (−112 to 63) mmHg, and −5 ± 28 (−110 to 60) mmHg, respectively. The 95% LOAs for SABP, DABP, and MABP were −31 to +31, −19 to +44, and −19 to +34 mmHg, respectively in sheep and goats; were −37 to +37, −19 to +44, and −19 to +34 mmHg, respectively in small cattle; and were −81 to +45, −50 to +63, and −59 to +50 mmHg, respectively in large cattle. Conclusions Agreement was poor between O- NIBP and IBP monitoring techniques. Clinical relevance Arterial BP should be monitored in anesthetized sheep, goats, and cattle using IBP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]