Intraarterial catheter diameter and dynamic response of arterial pressure monitoring system: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

The dynamic response (DR) of the arterial pressure monitoring system (APMS) may depend on the intraarterial catheter (IAC) diameter. We hypothesized that adequate DR would be more common when using a smaller IAC. We compared the DR of the AMPS (Auto Transducer™) between three IACs (BD Angiocath Plus™) with different diameters. 353 neurosurgical patients were randomized into three groups undergoing catheterization with a 20-, 22-, or 24-gauge IAC: 20G (n = 119), 22G (n = 117), and 24G (n = 117) groups, respectively. The DR, which depends on the natural frequency and damping coefficient, was divided into four types: adequate (primary outcome measure), underdamped, overdamped, and unacceptable. The frequency of intraoperative IAC malfunction was noted. Adequate DR was observed more frequently in the 22G and 24G groups than the 20G group (13.7% and 15.4% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.011 and 0.004, respectively). The frequency of underdamped DR was higher in the 20G group than the 24G group (86.6% vs. 69.2%, P = 0.001), whereas overdamped DR was more frequent in the 24G group than the 20G and 22G groups (6.0% vs. 0.0% and 0.0%, P = 0.007 and 0.014, respectively). IAC malfunctioned more frequently during surgery in the 24G group than the 20G and 22G groups (15.4% vs. 0.0% and 1.7%, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). The frequency of adequate DR was low regardless of the IAC diameter. Nonetheless, in terms of DR and IAC malfunction, a 22-gauge BD Angiocath Plus™ was more suitable for invasive blood pressure monitoring with Auto Transducer™ than a 20- or 24-gauge BD Angiocath Plus™. Registration Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03642756. Date of Registration: July 27, 2018.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Availability of data and material

The data and materials of this study are available upon request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. 1.

    Romagnoli S, Romano SM, Bevilacqua S, Lazzeri C, Gensini GF, Pratesi C, Quattrone D, Dini D, De Gaudio AR. Dynamic response of liquid-filled catheter systems for measurement of blood pressure: precision of measurements and reliability of the Pressure Recording Analytical Method with different disposable systems. J Crit Care. 2011;26:415–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.08.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ahmad RA, Ahmad S, Naveed A, Baig MAR. Peripheral arterial blood pressure versus central crterial blood pressure monitoring in critically ill patients after cardio-pulmonary bypass. Pak J Med Sci. 2017;33:310–4. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.332.12220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cousins TR, O’Donnell JM. Arterial cannulation: a critical review. AANA J. 2004;72:267–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Mandel MA, Dauchot PJ. Radial artery cannulation in 1,000 patients: precautions and complications. J Hand Surg Am. 1977;2:482–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0363-5023(77)80030-0.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Scheer B, Perel A, Pfeiffer UJ. Clinical review: complications and risk factors of peripheral arterial catheters used for haemodynamic monitoring in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine. Crit Care. 2002;6:199–204. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc1489.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Miller RD. Miller’s anesthesia. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2015. p. 1351–4.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gardner RM. Direct blood pressure measurement–dynamic response requirements. Anesthesiology. 1981;54:227–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-198103000-00010.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Mark JB. Atlas of cardiovascular monitoring. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. p. 105–18.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hunziker P. Accuracy and dynamic response of disposable pressure transducer-tubing systems. Can J Anaesth. 1987;34:409–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03010146.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kleinman B, Powell S. Dynamic response of the ROSE damping device. J Clin Monit. 1989;5:111–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01617884.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Boutros A, Albert S. Effect of the dynamic response of transducer-tubing system on accuracy of direct blood pressure measurement in patients. Crit Care Med. 1983;11:124–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-198302000-00014.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Todorovic M, Jensen EW, Thogersen C. Evaluation of dynamic performance in liquid-filled catheter systems for measuring invasive blood pressure. Int J Clin Monit Comput. 1996;13:173–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016903508976.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Schwid HA. Frequency response evaluation of radial artery catheter-manometer systems: sinusoidal frequency analysis versus flush method. J Clin Monit. 1988;4:181–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01621814.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Fujiwara SJL, Tachihara K, Mori S, Ouchi K, Itakura S, Yasuda M, Hitosugi T, Imaizumi U, Miki Y, Toyoguchi I, Yoshida KI, Yokoyama T. Influence of the marvelous three-way stopcock on the natural frequency and damping coefficient in blood pressure transducer kits. J Clin Monit Comput. 2018;32:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-017-9979-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Romagnoli S, Ricci Z, Quattrone D, Tofani L, Tujjar O, Villa G, Romano SM, De Gaudio AR. Accuracy of invasive arterial pressure monitoring in cardiovascular patients: an observational study. Crit Care. 2014;18:644. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0644-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kleinman B, Powell S, Kumar P, Gardner RM. The fast flush test measures the dynamic response of the entire blood pressure monitoring system. Anesthesiology. 1992;77:1215–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199212000-00024.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jones RM, Hill AB, Nahrwold ML, Bolles RE. The effect of method of radial artery cannulation on postcannulation blood flow and thrombus formation. Anesthesiology. 1981;55:76–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-198107000-00016.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    De Oliveira GS Jr., Beckmann K, Salvacion A, Kim J, Sherwani S, McCarthy RJ. The effect of the arterial catheter insertion technique on the success of radial artery cannulation: a prospective and randomized study. J Crit Care. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lee HC, Jung CW. Vital Recorder-a free research tool for automatic recording of high-resolution time-synchronised physiological data from multiple anaesthesia devices. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20062-4.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rook WH, Turner JD, Clutton-Brock TH. Analysis of damping characteristics of arterial catheter blood pressure monitoring in a large intensive care unit. S Afr J Crti Care. 2017;33:8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Saugel B, Kouz K, Meidert AS, Schulte-Uentrop L, Romagnoli S. How to measure blood pressure using an arterial catheter: a systematic 5-step approach. Crit Care. 2020;24:172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-02859-w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Melamed R, Johnson K, Pothen B, Sprenkle MD, Johnson PJ. Invasive blood pressure monitoring systems in the ICU: influence of the blood-conserving device on the dynamic response characteristics and agreement with noninvasive measurements. Blood Press Monit. 2012;17:179–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0b013e328356e1c7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Cochard JF (2005) Performance evaluation of european pressure sensors. ICU management & practice. https://healthmanagement.org/c/icu/issuearticle/performance-evaluation-of-european-pressure-sensors. Accessed 16 Oct 2020.

  24. 24.

    Joffe R, Duff J, Garcia Guerra G, Pugh J, Joffe AR. The accuracy of blood pressure measured by arterial line and non-invasive cuff in critically ill children. Crit Care. 2016;20:177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1354-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fujiwara S, Kawakubo Y, Mori S, Tachihara K, Toyoguchi I, Yokoyama T. Effect of planecta and ROSE on the frequency characteristics of blood pressure-transducer kits. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29:681–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-014-9650-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bocchi L, Romagnoli S. Resonance artefacts in modern pressure monitoring systems. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:707–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9760-1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Downs JB, Rackstein AD, Klein EF Jr, Hawkins IF Jr. Hazards of radial-artery catheterization. Anesthesiology. 1973;38:283–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-197303000-00017.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bedford RF. Radial arterial function following percutaneous cannulation with 18- and 20-gauge catheters. Anesthesiology. 1977;47:37–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-197707000-00009.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Davis FM. Radial artery cannulation: influence of catheter size and material on arterial occlusion. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1978;6:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X7800600107.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Davis FM, Stewart JM. Radial artery cannulation. A prospective study in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Br J Anaesth. 1980;52:41–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/52.1.41.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Tanabe P, Kyriacou DN, Garland F. Factors affecting the risk of blood bank specimen hemolysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:897–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00637.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Burns ER, Yoshikawa N. Hemolysis in serum samples drawn by emergency department personnel versus laboratory phlebotomists. Lab Med. 2002;33:378–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hee-Pyoung Park.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (number: D-1807-154-961, date of approval: August 8, 2018, address: 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea, 03080).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 110 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 36 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oh, H., Choe, S.H., Kim, Y.J. et al. Intraarterial catheter diameter and dynamic response of arterial pressure monitoring system: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Monit Comput (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-021-00663-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dynamic response
  • Arterial pressure monitoring system
  • Intraarterial catheter diameter
  • Invasive blood pressure monitoring