[Meta-analyses on measurement precision of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies in adults]

An ideal non-invasive monitoring system should provide accurate and reproducible measurements of clinically relevant variables that enables clinicians to guide therapy accordingly. The monitor should be rapid, easy to use, readily available at the bedside, operator-independent, cost-effective and should have a minimal risk and side effect profile for patients. An example is the introduction of pulse oximetry, which has become established for non-invasive monitoring of oxygenation worldwide. A corresponding non-invasive monitoring of hemodynamics and perfusion could optimize the anesthesiological treatment to the needs in individual cases. In recent years several non-invasive technologies to monitor hemodynamics in the perioperative setting have been introduced: suprasternal Doppler ultrasound, modified windkessel function, pulse wave transit time, radial artery tonometry, thoracic bioimpedance, endotracheal bioimpedance, bioreactance, and partial CO₂ rebreathing have been tested for monitoring cardiac output or stroke volume. The photoelectric finger blood volume clamp technique and respiratory variation of the plethysmography curve have been assessed for monitoring fluid responsiveness. In this manuscript meta-analyses of non-invasive monitoring technologies were performed when non-invasive monitoring technology and reference technology were comparable. The primary evaluation criterion for all studies screened was a Bland-Altman analysis. Experimental and pediatric studies were excluded, as were all studies without a non-invasive monitoring technique or studies without evaluation of cardiac output/stroke volume or fluid responsiveness. Most studies found an acceptable bias with wide limits of agreement. Thus, most non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies cannot be considered to be equivalent to the respective reference method. Studies testing the impact of non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring technologies as a trend evaluation on outcome, as well as studies evaluating alternatives to the finger for capturing the raw signals for hemodynamic assessment, and, finally, studies evaluating technologies based on a flow time measurement are current topics of clinical research.