Assessment of agreement between invasive and non-invasive blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorNinziza, Jadot
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-27T13:30:26Z
dc.date.available2010-09-27T13:30:26Z
dc.date.issued2010-09-27
dc.descriptionMSc (Nursing), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersranden_US
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of the study was to describe and compare the limits of agreement between invasive blood pressure (IBP) and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) readings obtained on patients in the adult critical care units (CCU) of a tertiary health care institution, to describe the factors that affect accuracy of both techniques, to describe the difference in terms of accuracy and sensitivity and the reasons given by the clinical practitioners for their choice of blood pressure measurement technique. A non-experimental descriptive comparative, prospective design was utilized in this two part study. The sample comprised of CCU patients (n = 80) in five adult critical care units over a 3-month period. Non-probability purposive sampling was utilized to obtain the desired sample in part one of the study. Data collection was via IBP and NIBP measurements obtained by the researcher and a record review of the patient’s critical care charts. Part two of the study comprised of clinical practitioners (n=50) and convenience sampling method was utilized. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse data. At the 95% confidence interval, the limits of agreements were found to be in range of ± 35 mmhg of IBP and NIBP systolic, ± 19.5 mmHg of IBP and NIBP diastolic and ±19.3 mmhg IBP and NIBP of mean arterial pressure. In practical terms this means that IBP and NIBP can not be used interchangeably in CCUs as the two methods did not consistently provide similar measurements because there was a high level of disagreement that included clinically important discrepancy of more than 10 mmhg which is the cut off acceptable reference in terms of discrepancy between the two BP techniques and add to the growing literature suggesting that IBP remains the gold standard technique for measuring the blood pressure in critical care setting. Factors such as Inotropic/ vasopressor support, sedation / analgesia, mechanical ventilation and severity of illness (APACHE II score) did not show significant influence on the discrepancy of the two BP techniques. In the second part of the study, more than 80 % of the sample of clinical practitioners acknowledged that the IBP technique remains the gold standard.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10539/8804
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectblood pressure measurement techniqueen_US
dc.subjectICU patientsen_US
dc.titleAssessment of agreement between invasive and non-invasive blood pressure measurements in critically ill patientsen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 5 of 9
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
01_forward_jadot FINAL_corrected 2010.pdf
Size:
27.3 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
02_chapter 1 , FINAL CORRECTED 2010 N02.pdf
Size:
46.74 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Jadot CHAPTER 2 FINAL CORRECTED 2010 NO2.pdf
Size:
148.28 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
04_chapter 3 , FINAL corrected 2010 N0 2.pdf
Size:
60.86 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
CHAP4 2010_results corrected FINAL_N0 2.pdf
Size:
249.5 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
ETD Collection