A clinical comparison between a non‐invasive blood pressure monitor using high definition oscillometry (Memodiagnostic MD 15/90 Pro) and invasive arterial blood pressure measurement in anaesthetized dogs

ObjectiveTo compare high definition oscillometry (HDO) to invasive blood pressure measurement in anaesthetized dogs.Study designProspective, clinical trial.AnimalsFifty dogs weighing 1.95–79 kg (mean 23.5 kg).Materials and methodsAnaesthetic and peri–anaesthetic management was chosen according to each dog's physical status and anaesthetist's preference. Direct arterial blood pressure measurements were performed using a catheter placed in the dorsal pedal artery and an electronic pressure transducer connected to a multiparameter monitor. Non–invasive blood pressure measurements were performed using an appropriately sized cuff placed around the tail base. Comparisons between the two methods were made using Bland and Altman plots. The data are reported as mean bias (lower, upper limits of agreement). Further analysis was performed after separating the data into the following categories based on invasive mean arterial blood pressure (MAP): high (MAP > 100 mmHg), medium (70 mmHg < MAP < 100 mmHg) and low (MAP < 70 mmHg) blood pressure (BP). The two methods were compared as used clinically.ResultsEight hundred measurement pairs for invasive and HDO BP readings were compared. Overall, the HDO measured lower values for SAP and DAP but higher for MAP than the invasive method. The lowest bias (upper, lower limits of agreement) were obtained for MAP, ?1 (?22, 19) mmHg. The biggest discrepancy between the methods was reflected by a large bias (limits of agreement) 5 (?34, 45) mmHg, was for SAP. The results for DAP were between those for SAP and MAP with a bias (limits of agreement) of 3 (?20, 27) mmHg. When the values were separated into the pressure range categories the HDO measured higher in the high, medium and low BP groups, with the exception of SAP in the low BP group.ConclusionsWhen considering the mean bias, the accuracy of HDO compared well with direct arterial blood pressure, but the precision was poor, as determined by wide limits of agreement.Clinical relevanceUsing trends and serial measurements rather than a single measurement for clinical decision making is recommended with both methods, when used as reported here.