Automatic algorithm for monitoring systolic pressure variation and difference in pulse pressure

Pestel, Gunther; Fukui, Kimiko; Hartwich, Volker; Schumacher, Peter M; Vogt, Andreas; Hiltebrand, Luzius B; Kurz, Andrea; Fujita, Yoshihisa; Inderbitzin, Daniel; Leibundgut, Daniel (2009). Automatic algorithm for monitoring systolic pressure variation and difference in pulse pressure. Anesthesia and analgesia, 108(6), pp. 1823-9. Hagerstown, Md.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181a2a8bf

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

BACKGROUND: Difference in pulse pressure (dPP) reliably predicts fluid responsiveness in patients. We have developed a respiratory variation (RV) monitoring device (RV monitor), which continuously records both airway pressure and arterial blood pressure (ABP). We compared the RV monitor measurements with manual dPP measurements. METHODS: ABP and airway pressure (PAW) from 24 patients were recorded. Data were fed to the RV monitor to calculate dPP and systolic pressure variation in two different ways: (a) considering both ABP and PAW (RV algorithm) and (b) ABP only (RV(slim) algorithm). Additionally, ABP and PAW were recorded intraoperatively in 10-min intervals for later calculation of dPP by manual assessment. Interobserver variability was determined. Manual dPP assessments were used for comparison with automated measurements. To estimate the importance of the PAW signal, RV(slim) measurements were compared with RV measurements. RESULTS: For the 24 patients, 174 measurements (6-10 per patient) were recorded. Six observers assessed dPP manually in the first 8 patients (10-min interval, 53 measurements); no interobserver variability occurred using a computer-assisted method. Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable bias and limits of agreement of the 2 automated methods compared with the manual method (RV: -0.33% +/- 8.72% and RV(slim): -1.74% +/- 7.97%). The difference between RV measurements and RV(slim) measurements is small (bias -1.05%, limits of agreement 5.67%). CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of the automated device are comparable with measurements obtained by human observers, who use a computer-assisted method. The importance of the PAW signal is questionable.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)


04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Intensive Care, Emergency Medicine and Anaesthesiology (DINA) > Clinic and Policlinic for Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Gastro-intestinal, Liver and Lung Disorders (DMLL) > Clinic of Visceral Surgery and Medicine > Visceral Surgery

UniBE Contributor:

Fukui, Kimiko; Vogt, Andreas; Hiltebrand, Luzius and Inderbitzin, Daniel




Lippincott Williams & Wilkins




Jeannie Wurz

Date Deposited:

04 Oct 2013 15:11

Last Modified:

23 Jan 2018 12:17

Publisher DOI:


PubMed ID:


Web of Science ID:


URI: (FactScience: 195685)

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback