摘要译文（供参考）
《有创测量与无创测量的低血压预测指数比较：一项前瞻性队列研究的事后分析》
背景：
临床试验和验证研究表明，低血压预测指数（HPI）具有良好的低血压预测能力。大多数评估 HPI 的研究都是从有创血压读数中得出的，但与无创替代方法的直接比较仍未确定。这种比较可以为临床医生在有创和无创监测策略之间做出决策提供有价值的见解。
目的：
评估通过无创与有创血压监测获得的 HPI 之间的预测差异。
设计：对 2018 年至 2020 年进行的一项前瞻性观察研究进行事后分析。
实施：在荷兰一家学术医院进行的单中心研究。
患者：
计划进行超过 2 小时择期非心脏手术的成年患者。在获得知情同意后，105 名患者中有 91 名有足够的数据进行分析。
主要结局指标：
主要结局是两个数据集之间获得的 HPI 预测的受试者工作特征（ROC）曲线下面积（AUC）差异。此外，还计算了事件发生时间估计的差异。
结果：
AUC（95%置信区间（CI））结果显示，有创和无创 HPI 之间无显著差异，面积分别为 94.2%（90.5 至 96.8）和 95.3%（90.4 至 98.2），估计差异为 1.1（-3.9 至 6.1）%；P = 0.673。然而，对于较高的 HPI 值，无创 HPI 显示出明显更长的事件发生时间估计。
结论：
在非心脏手术期间，临床医生可以可靠地获得无创 HPI，在 HPI 概率方面显示出相当的准确性，并具有额外响应时间的潜力。
试验注册：
2019 年 1 月 10 日在 Clinicaltrials.gov（NCT03795831）注册。
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03795831。
原文摘要
A comparison between invasive and noninvasive measurement of the Hypotension Prediction Index: A post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort study
Background: Clinical trials and validation studies demonstrate promising hypotension prediction capability by the Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI). Most studies that evaluate HPI derive it from invasive blood pressure readings, but a direct comparison with the noninvasive alternative remains undetermined. Such a comparison could provide valuable insights for clinicians in deciding between invasive and noninvasive monitoring strategies.
Objectives: Evaluating predictive differences between HPI when obtained through noninvasive versus invasive blood pressure monitoring.
Design: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study conducted between 2018 and 2020.
Setting: Single-centre study conducted in an academic hospital in the Netherlands.
Patients: Adult noncardiac surgery patients scheduled for over 2 h long elective procedures. After obtaining informed consent, 91 out of the 105 patients had sufficient data for analysis.
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the difference in area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) obtained for HPI predictions between the two datasets. Additionally, difference in time-to-event estimations were calculated.
Results: AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)) results revealed a nonsignificant difference between invasive and noninvasive HPI, with areas of 94.2% (90.5 to 96.8) and 95.3% (90.4 to 98.2), respectively with an estimated difference of 1.1 (-3.9 to 6.1)%; P = 0.673. However, noninvasive HPI demonstrated significantly longer time-to-event estimations for higher HPI values.
Conclusion: Noninvasive HPI is reliably accessible to clinicians during noncardiac surgery, showing comparable accuracy in HPI probabilities and the potential for additional response time.
Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03795831) on 10 January 2019. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03795831.
