Cardiac output (CO) estimation in patients in intensive care units (ICUs) by a non-invasive, automated, oscillometric, cuff-based apparatus (Mobil-O-Graph [MG]) is reproducible with acceptable accuracy versus thermodilution. In this pilot study, we tested the hypothesis that clinical decisions based on the MG device are in agreement with those based on invasive measurements using a Swan-Ganz catheter (SGC). Methods: Hemodynamic monitoring using an SGC and an MG was performed on 20 consenting critically ill patients in shock and under treatment, hospitalized in ICU. Retrospectively, three ICU physicians were asked to determine the need for blood transfusion, inotropes, fluids, diuretics, oxygen, and vasoconstrictive agents. Decisions (defined as “need for action” or “no action”) were based: (i) on SGC-acquired data and standard ICU monitoring (SIM); (ii) on MG-acquired data and SIM; (iii) SIM only. The decisions were compared using Cohen’s kappa agreement coefficient and Wilcoxon’s nonparametric test. Results: The overall number of decisions, as well as the subanalysis of “need for action” decisions, based either on information from an SGC or MG, were comparable. The significant positive kappa agreement coefficients indicated moderate to strong agreement. MG-derived decisions agreed with SGC-derived decisions to a significantly higher degree compared with SIM-based decisions. Conclusions: Clinical decisions in the ICU setting based on MG data were in acceptable agreement with SGC-based decisions. Larger studies are required to confirm this finding. MG devices may provide a simple, operator-independent, low-cost, first-line bedside method for simultaneous continuous monitoring of blood pressure and CO levels in critically ill patients outside the ICU.

Hypertension is a major cardiovascular risk factor in both kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) and patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is considered the gold-standard method for hypertension management in these subjects. This is the first study evaluating the full ambulatory blood pressure (BP) profile and short-term BP variability (BPV) in KTRs versus CKD patients without kidney replacement therapy. Methods: Ninety-three KTRs were matched with 93 CKD patients for age, sex, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. All participants underwent 24-hour ABPM. Mean ambulatory BP levels, BP trajectories, and BPV indices (standard deviation [SD], weighted SD, and average real variability) were compared between the two groups. Results: There were no significant between-group differences in 24-hour systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) (KTRs: 126.9 ± 13.1/79.1 ± 7.9 mmHg vs. CKD: 128.1 ± 11.2/77.9 ± 8.1 mmHg, p = 0.52/0.29), daytime SBP/DBP and nighttime SBP; nighttime DBP was slightly higher in KTRs (KTRs: 76.5 ± 8.8 mmHg vs. CKD: 73.8 ± 8.8 mmHg, p = 0.04). Repeated measurements analysis of variance showed a significant effect of time on both ambulatory SBP and DBP (SBP: F = [19, 3002] = 11.735, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.069) but not of KTR/CKD status (SBP: F = [1, 158] = 0.668, p = 0.42, partial η2 = 0.004). Ambulatory systolic/diastolic BPV indices were not different between KTRs and CKD patients, except for 24-hour DBP SD that was slightly higher in the latter group (KTRs: 10.2 ± 2.2 mmHg vs. CKD: 10.9 ± 2.6 mmHg, p = 0.04). No differences were noted in dipping pattern between the two groups. Conclusion: Mean ambulatory BP levels, BP trajectories, and short-term BPV indices are not significantly different between KTRs and CKD patients, suggesting that KTRs have a similar ambulatory BP profile compared to CKD patients without kidney replacement therapy.