Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 911–918 | Cite as

Presence of an arterial line improves response to simulated hypotension and pulseless electrical activity

  • Jonathan LippsEmail author
  • Andrew Goldberg
  • Samuel DeMariaJr.
  • Yury Khelemsky
  • Adam Levine
  • Vedat Yildiz
  • Bryan Mahoney
Original Research


With pulseless electrical activity (PEA) emerging as one of the leading cardiac arrest arrhythmias, the rapid response and accurate diagnosis of PEA is essential to improve survival rates. Although the use of invasive blood pressure monitoring to more quickly detect changes in blood pressure is widespread, evidence for its use is largely anecdotal and placement is not without risk. This is a prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial involving 58 senior anesthesiology residents undergoing a simulation of intraoperative PEA using high-fidelity simulation. Of the total 58 participants, 28 subjects were randomized to invasive blood pressure monitoring and 30 to non-invasive blood pressure monitoring in order to investigate the effects of arterial line information on the response time of ACLS-trained anesthesiology residents. Response times of subjects in the group provided with invasive blood pressure monitoring were faster to palpate pulses (6.5 s faster, p = .0470), initiate chest compressions (17 s faster, p = .004), and administer 1 mg of epinephrine (21 s faster, p = .0005. The absolute number of pharmacologic interventions was increased in the group with invasive blood pressure monitoring (p = .020). These findings suggest that noninvasive blood pressure monitoring and other readily available monitors are not as powerful as invasive blood pressure monitoring in influencing decision-making during a PEA event. As there is currently no specific blood pressure at which the patient is considered to be in PEA, future studies are necessary to clarify the correlation between the arterial line tracing and the appropriate trigger for ACLS initiation.


Hypotension Anesthesia Cardiac arrest Arterial line Invasive monitoring Simulation 



We are extremely grateful for the contributions of Gary Chan for his assistance with data collection as well as Michael Durda for helping with manuscript preparation. Also thanks to Scott Winfield and the Clinical Skills Education and Assessment Center at the OSU College of Medicine for their technical assistance without which this study would not be possible.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any academic or financial conflicts of interest with respect to this study. Dr. Levine receives royalties from Springer Publishing, an honorarium from the American Society of Anesthesiology, and serves on the advisory board for GTX Surgery.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

As stated above informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    American Society of Anesthesiologists Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring (2010) Accessed 4 Apr 2016.
  2. 2.
    Schroeder RA, Barbeito A, Bar-Yosef S, Mark JB. Cardiovascular Monitoring. In: Miller RD, Eriksson LI, Fleisher LA, Wiener-Kronish JP, Young WL, editors. Miller's Anesthesia. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2010. p. 1267–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scheer BV, Perel A, Pfeiffer UJ. Clinical review: complications and risk factors of peripheral arterial catheters used for haemodynamic monitoring in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine. Crit Care. 2002;6(3):199–204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garland A, Connors AF Jr. Indwelling arterial catheters in the intensive care unit: necessary and beneficial, or a harmful crutch? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182(2):133–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wax DB, Lin HM, Leibowitz AB. Invasive and concomitant noninvasive intraoperative blood pressure monitoring: observed differences in measurements and associated therapeutic interventions. Anesthesiology. 2011;115(5):973–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Garg AX, et al. Relationship between intraoperative mean arterial pressure and clinical outcomes after noncardiac surgery: toward an empirical definition of hypotension. Anesthesiology. 2013;119(3):507–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Monk TG, Bronsert MR, Henderson WG, et al. Association between intraoperative hypotension and hypertension and 30-day postoperative mortality in noncardiac Surgery. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(2):307–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bergum D, Nordseth T, Mjølstad OC, Skogvoll E, Haugen BO. Causes of in-hospital cardiac arrest—incidences and rate of recognition. Resuscitation. 2015;87:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donnino MW, Salciccioli JD, Howell MD, et al. Time to administration of epinephrine and outcome after in-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythms: retrospective analysis of large in-hospital data registry. BMJ. 2014;348:g3028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Desbiens NA. Simplifying the management of pulseless electrical activity in adults: a qualitative review. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(2):391–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Link MS, Berkow LC, Kudenchuk PJ, et al. Part 7: adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2015 American heart association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2015;132:S444–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neumar RW, Otto CW, Link MS, et al. Part 8: adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2010 American heart association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2010;122(18):S729–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nuttall G, Burckhardt J, Hadley A, et al. Surgical and patient risk factors for severe arterial line complications in adults. Anesthesiology. 2016;124(3):590–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gershengorn HB, Garland A, Kramer A, et al. Variation of arterial and central venous catheter use in the United States intensive care units. Anesthesiology. 2014;120(3):650–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Truhlář A, et al. European resuscitation council guidelines for resuscitation 2015: section 4. Cardiac arrest in special circumstances. Resuscitation. 2015;95:148–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brearley S, Shearman CP, Simms MH. Peripheral pulse palpation: an unreliable physical sign. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1992;74(3):169–71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paradis NA, Martin GB, Goetting MG, et al. Aortic pressure during human cardiac arrest, identification of pseudo-electromechanical dissociation. Chest. 1992;101(1):123–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meaney PA, Bobrow BJ, Mancini ME, et al. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: [corrected] improving cardiac resuscitation outcomes both inside and outside the hospital: a consensus statement from the American heart association. Circulation. 2013;128(4):417–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Department of AnesthesiologyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai/St Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations