- Design
- Single-centre, blinded, randomised non-inferiority trial
- Population
- 143 adults having moderate- or high-risk elective non-cardiac surgery with arterial monitoring
- Primary outcome
- Area under MAP 65 mmHg threshold
- Effect
- Median 3.75 vs 4.00 mmHg·min; log mean difference 0.03 (-0.24 to 0.29), non-inferior
In this single-centre, blinded randomised trial, 143 adults having moderate- or high-risk elective non-cardiac surgery with continuous arterial monitoring were allocated to a MAP alarm at below 72 mmHg or an HPI alarm above 85.
Median area under the MAP 65 mmHg threshold was 3.75 mmHg·min with the MAP alarm and 4.00 with HPI. The log-transformed mean difference was 0.03 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.29), within the pre-set non-inferiority margin of -0.4. Hypotension and hypertension metrics, alarm duration, kidney and myocardial injury, 30-day mortality, length of stay, vasoactive drugs and fluids did not differ.
The HPI requires proprietary monitoring and correlates strongly with MAP itself. This trial shows that the benefit can be achieved with an alarm every arterial monitor already has.
The practical implication is that departments without HPI-capable monitoring are not offering inferior blood pressure care if they set an earlier MAP alarm.
- Set a MAP alarm at about 72 mmHg for patients at risk of intraoperative hypotension.
- Treat when the alarm sounds, before MAP falls below 65 mmHg.
- Reserve HPI platforms for settings where their other features justify the cost.
- Clinical outcomes were not powered; this trial measured hypotension burden.
Why it matters
It shows the earlier trigger, not the proprietary index, is what prevents intraoperative hypotension.
Don't overread it
The trial was single-centre with 143 patients and was not powered for kidney injury, myocardial injury or mortality.
The statistics, in plain English
Non-inferiority means the MAP alarm was shown to be no worse than HPI by more than a pre-agreed margin. Hypotension burden was skewed, so it was log-transformed before comparing groups; the confidence interval stayed well inside the margin.
Read the rest in the app
You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.

Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.
Tomorrow morning, before your first patient
One edition a day for anaesthesiology, written by the desk, every claim tied to its paper. Six minutes.
Get the app — free