Objective

To evaluate the agreement of two noninvasive blood pressure devices: a human device with the cuff placed on the wrist (Omron R1) and a veterinary device with the cuff placed on the upper brachium (Surgivet Advisor Vital Signs Monitor) with invasive blood pressure (IBP) measurement in anaesthetized chimpanzees.

Study design

Prospective clinical study.

Animals

A convenience sample of 11 adult chimpanzees undergoing anaesthesia for translocation and routine health checks.

Methods

Systolic (SAP) and diastolic arterial pressures (DAP) were continuously recorded via a transducer connected to a femoral artery cannula, and at 5 minute intervals from the two oscillometric devices. Agreement was explored using Bland-Altman analysis and bias defined as the mean difference between the two measurement methods. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Bias and standard deviation for the Surgivet compared with IBP were 8.6 ± 18 for SAP and 8.4 ± 9.9 for DAP, showing a significant underestimation of both variables. Limits of agreement (LOA) were from –27 to 44 for SAP and from –11 to 28 for DAP. Correlation coefficients between the Surgivet and IBP values were 0.86 for SAP and 0.85 for DAP (p < 0.0001). Bias and standard deviation for the Omron compared with the IBP were –21 ± 25 for SAP and –18 ± 15 for DAP, showing a significant overestimation of both variables. LOA were from –70 to –28 for SAP and from –47 to 11 for DAP. Spearman correlation coefficients between the Omron and IBP values were 0.64 for SAP and 0.72 for DAP (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions and clinical relevance

Although neither device met all the criteria for device validation, the Surgivet presented better agreement with IBP values than the Omron in adult anaesthetized chimpanzees.

中文翻译：

---

评估两种示波血压仪与麻醉黑猩猩（Pan troglodytes）有创血压的一致性

客观的

评估两种无创血压设备的一致性：袖带置于手腕上的人体器械 (Omron R1) 和袖带置于上臂的兽医器械（Surgivet Advisor Vital Signs Monitor）与有创血压 (IBP) 的一致性) 麻醉黑猩猩的测量。

学习规划

前瞻性临床研究。

动物

11 只成年黑猩猩接受麻醉以进行易位和常规健康检查的便利样本。

方法

收缩压 (SAP) 和舒张压 (DAP) 通过连接到股动脉插管的换能器连续记录，并以 5 分钟间隔从两个示波装置记录。使用 Bland-Altman 分析探索一致性，并将偏差定义为两种测量方法之间的平均差异。计算斯皮尔曼相关系数。显着性设定为p < 0.05。

结果

与 IBP 相比，Surgivet 的偏差和标准偏差对于 SAP 为 8.6 ± 18，对于 DAP 为 8.4 ± 9.9，表明对这两个变量的严重低估。SAP 的协议限制 (LOA) 为 –27 至 44，DAP 为 –11 至 28。Surgivet 和 IBP 值之间的相关系数 SAP 为 0.86，DAP 为 0.85 ( p < 0.0001)。与 IBP 相比，Omron 的偏差和标准偏差对于 SAP 为 –21 ± 25，对于 DAP 为 –18 ± 15，表明两个变量都被显着高估。SAP 的 LOA 为 –70 至 –28，DAP 的 LOA 为 –47 至 11。欧姆龙和 IBP 值之间的斯皮尔曼相关系数 SAP 为 0.64，DAP 为 0.72 ( p < 0.0001)。

结论和临床相关性

尽管这两种设备都不符合设备验证的所有标准，但在成年麻醉黑猩猩中，与 Omron 相比，Surgivet 与 IBP 值的一致性更好。