To identify early postoperative haemodynamic and laboratory parameters predicting outcomes following total cavopulmonary connection.

Patients who underwent total cavopulmonary connection between 2012 and 2021 were evaluated. Serial values of mean pulmonary artery pressure, mean arterial pressure, peripheral oxygen saturation, and lactate levels were collected. The influence of these variables on morbidities was analyzed. Cut-off values were calculated using the receiver operating characteristic analysis.

A total of 249 patients were included. All patients had previous bidirectional cavopulmonary shunt. Median age and weight at total cavopulmonary connection were 2.2 (1.8–2.7) years and 11.7 (10.7–13.4) kg, respectively. All patients were extubated in the ICU at a median of 3 (2–5) hours after ICU admission. Postoperative pulmonary artery pressure, around 12 hours after extubation, was significantly associated with chest tube drainage (p = 0.048), chylothorax (p = 0.021), ascites (p = 0.016), and adverse events (p = 0.028). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed a cut-off value of 13–15 mmHg for chest tube drainage and chylothorax and 17 mmHg for ascites and adverse events. Mean arterial pressure 1 hour after extubation was associated with prolonged chest tube drainage (p = 0.015) and adverse events (p = 0.008). Peripheral oxygen saturation 6 hours after extubation (p = 0.003) was associated with chest tube duration and peripheral oxygen saturation 1 hour after extubation (p < 0.001) was associated with ascites. Lactate levels on 2nd postoperative day (p = 0.022) were associated with ascites and lactate levels on 1st postoperative day (p = 0.009) were associated with adverse events.

Higher pulmonary artery pressure, lower mean arterial pressure, lower peripheral oxygen saturation, and higher lactate in early postoperative period, around 12 hours after extubation, predicted in-hospital and post-discharge adverse events following total cavopulmonary connection.

It is difficult to obtain an accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement, especially in the prehospital environment. It is not known fully how various BP measurement techniques differ from one another.

The study hypothesized that there are differences in the accuracy of various non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement strategies as compared to the gold standard of intra-arterial (IA) measurement.

The study enrolled adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with radial IA catheters placed to measure radial intra-arterial blood pressure (RIBP) as a part of their standard care at a large, urban, tertiary-care Level I trauma center. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was taken by three different NIBP techniques (oscillometric, auscultated, and palpated) and compared to RIBP measurements. Data were analyzed using the paired t-test with dependent samples to detect differences between RIBP measurements and each NIBP method. The primary outcome was the difference in RIBP and NIBP measurement. There was also a predetermined subgroup analysis based on gender, body mass index (BMI), primary diagnosis requiring IA line placement, and current vasoactive medication use.

Forty-four patients were enrolled to detect a predetermined clinically significant difference of 5mmHg in SBP. The patient population was 63.6% male and 36.4% female with an average age of 58.4 years old. The most common primary diagnoses were septic shock (47.7%), stroke (13.6%), and increased intracranial pressure (ICP; 13.6%). Most patients were receiving some form of sedation (63.4%), while 50.0% were receiving vasopressor medication and 31.8% were receiving anti-hypertensive medication. When compared to RIBP values, only the palpated SBP values had a clinically significant difference (9.88mmHg less than RIBP; P < .001). When compared to RIBP, the oscillometric and auscultated SBP readings showed statistically but not clinically significant lower values. The palpated method also showed a clinically significant lower SBP reading than the oscillometric method (5.48mmHg; P < .001) and the auscultated method (5.06mmHg; P < .001). There was no significant difference between the oscillometric and auscultated methods (0.42mmHg; P = .73).

Overall, NIBPs significantly under-estimated RIBP measurements. Palpated BP measurements were consistently lower than RIBP, which was statistically and clinically significant. These results raise concern about the accuracy of palpated BP and its pervasive use in prehospital care. The data also suggested that auscultated and oscillometric BP may provide similar measurements.