-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2022Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is associated with perioperative stroke in noncardiac surgery. The magnitude of this association was assessed in a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is associated with perioperative stroke in noncardiac surgery. The magnitude of this association was assessed in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched up to June 2022 for studies assessing the association between patent foramen ovale and perioperative stroke in adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The primary analysis was limited to studies reporting effect estimates adjusted for significant clinical confounders. We calculated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
We included nine retrospective and two prospective observational studies, including 21 257 082 patients. The presence of a patent foramen ovale was independently associated with stroke at 30 days after surgery (aOR=6.68 [95% CI: 3.51-12.73]; P<0.001) and at longest follow-up available (aOR=7.36 [95% CI: 3.56-15.21]; P<0.001). The odds of stroke at 30 days varied according to surgical specialty: neurosurgery (aOR=4.52 [95% CI: 3.17-6.43]), vascular surgery (aOR=7.15 [95% CI: 2.52-20.22]), thoracic surgery (aOR=10.64 [95% CI: 5.97-18.98]), orthopaedic surgery (aOR=11.85 [95% CI: 5.38-26.08]), general surgery (aOR=14.40 [95% CI: 10.88-19.06]), and genitourinary surgery (aOR=17.28 [95% CI: 10.36-28.84]).
CONCLUSIONS
The presence of a patent foramen ovale is associated with a large and consistent increase in odds of stroke across all explored surgical settings. Prospective trials should further explore this association by systematically assessing patent foramen ovale and stroke prevalence and identifying a specific population at risk. This is crucial for the elaboration of prevention plans and may improve perioperative outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Foramen Ovale, Patent; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Stroke; Neurosurgical Procedures; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 35987705
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.06.036 -
Anesthesiology Dec 2023Postsurgical pain is a key component of surgical recovery. However, the genetic drivers of postsurgical pain remain unclear. A broad review and meta-analyses of variants... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postsurgical pain is a key component of surgical recovery. However, the genetic drivers of postsurgical pain remain unclear. A broad review and meta-analyses of variants of interest will help investigators understand the potential effects of genetic variation.
METHODS
This article is a systematic review of genetic variants associated with postsurgical pain in humans, assessing association with postsurgical pain scores and opioid use in both acute (0 to 48 h postoperatively) and chronic (at least 3 months postoperatively) settings. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 2000 to 2022 for studies using search terms related to genetic variants and postsurgical pain in humans. English-language studies in adult patients examining associations of one or more genetic variants with postsurgical pain were included. The primary outcome was association of genetic variants with either acute or chronic postsurgical pain. Pain was measured by patient-reported pain score or analgesic or opioid consumption.
RESULTS
A total of 163 studies were included, evaluating 129 unique genes and 594 unique genetic variants. Many of the reported significant associations fail to be replicated in other studies. Meta-analyses were performed for seven variants for which there was sufficient data (OPRM1 rs1799971; COMT rs4680, rs4818, rs4633, and rs6269; and ABCB1 rs1045642 and rs2032582). Only two variants were associated with small differences in postsurgical pain: OPRM1 rs1799971 (for acute postsurgical opioid use standard mean difference = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.35; cohort size, 8,227; acute postsurgical pain score standard mean difference = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.31; cohort size, 4,619) and COMT rs4680 (chronic postsurgical pain score standard mean difference = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.44; cohort size, 1,726).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite much published data, only two alleles have a small association with postsurgical pain. Small sample sizes, potential confounding variables, and inconsistent findings underscore the need to examine larger cohorts with consistent outcome measures.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics
PubMed: 37774411
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004677 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies. All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution. New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics. Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable. We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34396514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014963 -
BJA Open Jun 2024Local anaesthetics are widely used for their analgesic and anaesthetic properties in the perioperative setting, including surgical procedures to excise malignant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Local anaesthetics are widely used for their analgesic and anaesthetic properties in the perioperative setting, including surgical procedures to excise malignant tumours. Simultaneously, chemotherapeutic agents remain a cornerstone of cancer treatment, targeting rapidly dividing cancer cells to inhibit tumour growth. The potential interactions between these two drug classes have drawn increasing attention and there are oncological surgical contexts where their combined use could be considered. This review examines existing evidence regarding the interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents, including biological mechanisms and clinical implications.
METHODS
A systematic search of electronic databases was performed as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Selection criteria were designed to capture , , and clinical studies assessing interactions between local anaesthetics and a wide variety of chemotherapeutic agents. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The data were synthesised using a narrative approach because of the anticipated heterogeneity of included studies.
RESULTS
Initial searches yielded 1225 relevant articles for screening, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. The interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents were diverse and multifaceted. studies frequently demonstrated altered cytotoxicity profiles when these agents were combined, with variations depending on the specific drug combination and cancer cell type. Mechanistically, some interactions were attributed to modifications in efflux pump activity, tumour suppressor gene expression, or alterations in cellular signalling pathways associated with tumour promotion. A large majority of studies report potentially beneficial effects of local anaesthetics in terms of enhancing the antineoplastic activity of chemotherapeutic agents. In animal models, the combined administration of local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents showed largely beneficial effects on tumour growth, metastasis, and overall survival. Notably, no clinical study examining the possible interactions of local anaesthetics and chemotherapy on cancer outcomes has been reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Reported preclinical interactions between local anaesthetics and chemotherapeutic agents are complex and encompass a spectrum of effects which are largely, although not uniformly, additive or synergistic. The clinical implications of these interactions remain unclear because of the lack of prospective trials. Nonetheless, the modulation of chemotherapy effects by local anaesthetics warrants further clinical investigation in the context of cancer surgery where they could be used together.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
Open Science Framework (OSF, project link: https://osf.io/r2u4z).
PubMed: 38741694
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjao.2024.100284 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Dec 2021Qualitative research (QR) take advantage of a wide range of methods and theoretical frameworks to explore people's beliefs, perspectives, experiences, and behaviours and... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Qualitative research (QR) take advantage of a wide range of methods and theoretical frameworks to explore people's beliefs, perspectives, experiences, and behaviours and has been applied to many areas of healthcare. The aim of this review was to explore how QR has contributed to the field of perioperative anesthesiology.
SOURCE
We performed a systematic scoping review of published QR studies pertaining to the field of perioperative anesthesiology in three databases (CINAHL, Pubmed, and Embase), published between January 2000 and June 2018. We extracted data regarding publication and researchers' characteristics, main study objectives, and methodological details. Descriptive statistics were generated for each data extraction category.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
A total of 107 articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We identified 13 main research topics addressed by the included studies. Topics such as "patient safety," "barriers to evidence-base medicine," "patient experiences under local/regional anesthesia," "training in practice," "experiences of care," and "implementation of changes in clinical practice" were commonly tackled. Others, such as "interprofessional communication", "work environment," and "patients'/healthcare professionals' interactions" were less common. Qualitative research was often poorly reported and methodological details were frequently missing.
CONCLUSION
Qualitative research has been used to explore an array of issues in perioperative anesthesiology. Some areas may benefit from further primary research, such as interprofessional communication or patient-centred care, while other areas may deserve a detailed systematic knowledge synthesis. We identified suboptimal reporting of qualitative methods and their link to study findings. Increased attention to quality criteria and reporting standards in QR is called for.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Delivery of Health Care; Health Personnel; Humans; Qualitative Research; Workplace
PubMed: 34608588
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-021-02106-y -
World Journal of Surgery May 2016Globally, an estimated 2 billion people lack access to surgical and anesthesia care. We sought to pool results of anesthesia care capacity assessments in low- and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Globally, an estimated 2 billion people lack access to surgical and anesthesia care. We sought to pool results of anesthesia care capacity assessments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to identify patterns of deficits and provide useful targets for advocacy and intervention.
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar identified reports that documented anesthesia care capacity from LMICs. When multiple assessments from one country were identified, only the study with the most facilities assessed was included. Patterns of availability or deficit were described.
RESULTS
We identified 22 LMICs (15 low- and 8 middle-income countries) with anesthesia care capacity assessments (614 facilities assessed). Anesthesia care resources were often unavailable, including relatively low-cost ones (e.g., oxygen and airway supplies). Capacity varied markedly between and within countries, regardless of the national income. The availability of fundamental resources for safe anesthesia, such as airway supplies and functional pulse oximeters, was often not reported (72 and 36 % of hospitals assessed, respectively). Anesthesia machines and the capability to perform general anesthesia were unavailable in 43 % (132/307 hospitals) and 56 % (202/361) of hospitals, respectively.
CONCLUSION
We identified a pattern of critical deficiencies in anesthesia care capacity in LMICs, including some low-cost, high-value added resources. The global health community should advocate for improvements in anesthesia care capacity and the potential benefits of doing so to health system planners. In addition, better quality data on anesthesia care capacity can improve advocacy, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of changes over time and the impact of capacity improvement interventions.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Developing Countries; Health Facilities; Health Resources; Humans; Needs Assessment
PubMed: 26822158
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3430-4 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2016: The leading cause of morbidity and mortality after surviving the rupture of an intracranial aneurysm is delayed cerebral ischaemia (DCI). We present an update of... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
: The leading cause of morbidity and mortality after surviving the rupture of an intracranial aneurysm is delayed cerebral ischaemia (DCI). We present an update of recent literature on the current status of prevention and treatment strategies for DCI after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. A systematic literature search of three databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Embase) was performed. Human clinical trials assessing treatment strategies, published in the last 5 yr, were included based on full-text analysis. Study data were extracted using tables depicting study type, sample size, and outcome variables. We identified 49 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Clazosentan, magnesium, and simvastatin have been tested in large high-quality trials but failed to show a beneficial effect. Cilostazol, eicosapentaenoic acid, erythropoietin, heparin, and methylprednisolone yield promising results in smaller, non-randomized or retrospective studies and warrant further investigation. Topical application of nicardipine via implants after clipping has been shown to reduce clinical and angiographic vasospasm. Methods to improve subarachnoid blood clearance have been established, but their effect on outcome remains unclear. Haemodynamic management of DCI is evolving towards euvolaemic hypertension. Endovascular rescue therapies, such as percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty and intra-arterial spasmolysis, are able to resolve angiographic vasospasm, but their effect on outcome needs to be proved. Many novel therapies for preventing and treating DCI after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage have been assessed, with variable results. Limitations of the study designs often preclude definite statements. Current evidence does not support prophylactic use of clazosentan, magnesium, or simvastatin. Many strategies remain to be tested in larger randomized controlled trials.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
This systematic review was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews.
PROSPERO
CRD42015019817.
Topics: Angioplasty; Brain Ischemia; Humans; Neuroprotective Agents; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
PubMed: 27160932
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew095 -
Joint Commission Journal on Quality and... Aug 2023Anesthesiology provider handoffs are complex, occur frequently, and have been associated with adverse patient outcomes. The authors sought to determine the degree to...
BACKGROUND
Anesthesiology provider handoffs are complex, occur frequently, and have been associated with adverse patient outcomes. The authors sought to determine the degree to which anesthesiology handoff studies with educational interventions incorporated tenets of educational best practices.
METHODS
The research team conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature focused on handoff studies with education interventions that included anesthesiology providers. Searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and ERIC (2010-September 2021). Each phase of the article review process included at least two trained independent reviewers. In addition, pairs of trained reviewers abstracted study characteristics RESULTS: Twenty-six articles met inclusion criteria. Two thirds (18/26; 69.2%) were published after 2017, and almost three fourths (19/26; 73.1%) included learners. Education intervention descriptions varied, with only 15.4% (4/26) briefly mentioning education theory, 7.7% (2/26) with clear education objectives, and 7.7% (2/26) assessing curriculum via participant satisfaction. Most (22/26; 84.6%) assessed Kirkpatrick's level 3 (handoff behavior change), and 26.9% (7/26) assessed level 4b (patient outcomes). Medical education quality scores were low (range 6-24, mean 11.3; max 32), with more than half (15/26; 57.7%) receiving scores ≤ 10.
CONCLUSION
Educational interventions demonstrate marked heterogeneity in the use of educational theoretical concepts and established curriculum development best practices. Future studies should report on important aspects of educational interventions, which would allow for comparison across studies, yield the essential data needed to identify handoff education best practices, and improve patient safety.
Topics: Humans; Patient Handoff; Anesthesiology; Curriculum; Patient Safety
PubMed: 36631352
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2022.12.002 -
Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology Apr 2021The treatment of SARS CoV2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome corona virus 2) also known as COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) continues to remain an enigma even after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The treatment of SARS CoV2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome corona virus 2) also known as COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) continues to remain an enigma even after six months of the pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been one of the most widely tested drugs for SARS CoV2 on account of its antiviral properties. However the results so far have been far from categorical. The meta-analyses conducted till date are also lacking in precision and appropriateness. This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of HCQ in SARS CoV2 by overcoming the limitations of earlier meta-analysis.
METHODS
A total of 5 prominent medical databases were searched and fourteen studies (n = 12455) were included in the systematic review and meta-analyses. The data on survival, alleviation of symptoms, conversion of RT PCR positivity to negativity, use and efficacy in presence of co-morbidities (Hypertension, diabetes and heart disease) and cardiac and gastrointestinal side effects were extracted. Meta-analysis was applied to calculate the pooled estimates. Fixed-effects model results were chosen since I was <25%.Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA version 13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).
RESULTS
The pooled estimates showed that HCQ treatment did not significantly affect survival at 14 and 28 days in COVID-19 patients with respect to the control population (RR: 1.003, 95% CI: 0.983-1.022), alleviation of symptoms at day 10 (RR: 1.044, 95% CI: 0.911 1.196), success in presence of co-morbidities (RR: 1.058, 95% CI: 1.035-1.082) and conversion from RT PCR positive to RT PCR negative on day 6 (RR:1.123, 95% CI: 1.041 1.212). There was higher risk for cardiac side effects (RR: 2.012, 95% CI: 1.428 2.833) and gastrointestinal side effects (RR: 1.318, 95% CI: 0.730 2.380) in HCQ recipients.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence on the safety and efficacy of HCQ either alone or in combination with other drugs in SARS CoV2 infection.
Topics: Azithromycin; COVID-19; COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing; Comorbidity; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33781656
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmmb.2021.03.002 -
Anesthesiology May 2014Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring devices are available for bedside use, but the accuracy and precision of these devices have not been evaluated in a... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring devices are available for bedside use, but the accuracy and precision of these devices have not been evaluated in a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring with invasive arterial pressure monitoring. Random-effects pooled bias and SD of bias for systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, and mean arterial pressure were calculated. Continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring was considered acceptable if pooled estimates of bias and SD were not greater than 5 and 8 mmHg, respectively, as recommended by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight studies (919 patients) were included. The overall random-effect pooled bias and SD were -1.6 ± 12.2 mmHg (95% limits of agreement -25.5 to 22.2 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure, 5.3 ± 8.3 mmHg (-11.0 to 21.6 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure, and 3.2 ± 8.4 mmHg (-13.4 to 19.7 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure. In 14 studies focusing on currently commercially available devices, bias and SD were -1.8 ± 12.4 mmHg (-26.2 to 22.5 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure, 6.0 ± 8.6 mmHg (-10.9 to 22.9 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure, and 3.9 ± 8.7 mmHg (-13.1 to 21.0 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
The results from this meta-analysis found that inaccuracy and imprecision of continuous noninvasive arterial pressure monitoring devices are larger than what was defined as acceptable. This may have implications for clinical situations where continuous noninvasive arterial pressure is being used for patient care decisions.
Topics: Arterial Pressure; Blood Pressure Determination; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Blood Pressure Monitors; Humans
PubMed: 24637618
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000226