Intra-arterial measurement of blood pressure is the standard method in cardiac surgery patients, providing continuous and reliable monitoring, especially during hemodynamic fluctuations. However, recent findings suggest that CNAP may be a reliable device for continuous assessment of arterial blood pressure, leading to its investigation in a wide range of clinical applications (
9,
10). Our study demonstrated no significant difference in MAP measurements between the CNAP and IAP methods during and after weaning from CPB in CABG patients (P > 0.05). SBP measured by IAP was consistently higher than CNAP across all recorded times, with the difference becoming statistically significant 10 minutes after weaning from CPB (P < 0.05). Conversely, DBP measured by CNAP was significantly higher than IAP at various time points during this period (P < 0.05). These findings suggest that MAP measurement by CNAP may be a suitable alternative to the invasive method following separation from CPB in cardiac surgery patients.
In a similar study, Kumar et al. (
6) compared CNAP and IAP in hospitalized ICU patients after cardiac surgery. They monitored 30 patients, measuring SBP, DBP, and MAP every minute for two hours after ICU admission. Consistent with our findings, SBP measured by CNAP was lower, while DBP was higher than IAP. The observed bias for SBP was 10.41 mmHg, for DBP was 5.33 mmHg, and for MAP was only 0.039 mmHg (
8).
Another study by Kumar et al. investigated differences between CNAP and IAP during anesthesia induction in 60 cardiac surgery patients (
6). Similar to our results, SBP measured by CNAP was lower, and DBP was higher than IAP. They reported biases of 5.98 mmHg for SBP, 3.72 mmHg for DBP, and 0.02 mmHg for MAP. The authors concluded that the acceptable bias between CNAP and IAP supports CNAP as a reliable method for patient monitoring during anesthesia induction (
11).
The CNAP measurements represent ABP in the brachial artery because of calibration with upper-arm oscillometric measurements. Although comparing CNAP and IAP in the brachial artery would have been closer to an ideal study design, we chose not to perform arterial cannulation at this site, as it is not a standard location for measuring blood pressure during cardiac surgeries and may carry a higher risk of complications compared to radial artery cannulation (
12).
Based on cardiovascular physiology, due to wave reflection and resistance to flow, systolic pressure in the radial artery is higher, and diastolic pressure is lower than these pressures in the brachial artery. Therefore, the bias observed between the two methods in the present and similar studies may be attributed to physiological differences in arterial pressures at the brachial and radial sites. Another factor contributing to the difference in systolic and diastolic pressure measurements between the two methods could be that CNAP is calibrated at predetermined intervals, while invasive arterial monitoring provides real-time measurements. The time elapsed since the previous CNAP calibration may account for the observed bias between the two methods.
Although it would have been ideal to measure IAP in the brachial artery, this was not performed in our study due to ethical considerations.
The American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation states that differences in SBP measured by the oscillometric sphygmomanometry method in the brachial and radial arteries range from 0.68 to 13.4 mmHg, and differences for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) range from 0.8 to 18 mmHg (
13). Meanwhile, another study, which compared pressures measured in the brachial and radial arteries, reported that 46%, 19%, and 13% of participants had radial SBP > 5, between 5 and 10, and between 10 and 15 mmHg higher than brachial SBP, respectively. Additionally, 14% of participants exhibited radial SBP > 15 mmHg higher than brachial SBP, representing the so-called "Popeye phenomenon" (
14).
In our study, the average value of radial SBP was 7.79 mmHg higher than the systolic pressure measured by the CNAP monitor, and the average DBP difference between the two methods was 4.78 mmHg. These findings indicate that both the average systolic and diastolic pressure differences in this study were within the aforementioned ranges.
In terms of MAP monitoring, the results of the present study showed that the difference between mean values recorded by the two methods was 0.49 mmHg, which is within the clinically acceptable range (±5 mmHg) recommended by the ANSI/AAMI Society for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation SP10. Furthermore, the measured standard deviation (7.7 ± 0.49) aligns with the declared range (SD < 8 mmHg), confirming that MAP measurement by the CNAP monitor is accurate and reliable.
This study had some limitations, including the small sample size, limited variety in surgical procedures, and the lack of inclusion of high-risk patients. These factors should be considered when designing future studies to expand on the findings presented here.
5.1. Conclusions
The results of the present study demonstrated that MAP measurements obtained using the CNAP method serve as a reliable representation of those obtained through intra-arterial invasive methods. Although differences were observed in systolic and diastolic pressures recorded by the two methods, these differences fell within the clinically acceptable range. Therefore, the systolic and diastolic pressures measured by the CNAP method can be confidently utilized for clinical decision-making. In conclusion, this study suggests that CNAP is a suitable alternative to invasive blood pressure monitoring for patients undergoing CABG surgery, particularly after weaning from CPB.