OBJECTIVE: To test the SpaceLabs Medical 90217 ambulatory blood pressure monitor for compliance with The Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's standard and a modification of the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol. METHODS: The study concerned 85 subjects aged 17-88 years with various arm circumferences and ranges of blood pressure. Resting casual blood pressure was 135 +/- 24/76 +/- 14 mmHg (mean +/- SD). For each subject nine readings of the 90217 device were compared with auscultatory reference readings of two independent observers who used a dual stethoscope. The measurements were performed with subjects standing, sitting and supine. The manual reference readings were alternated with the 90217 monitor's readings. RESULTS: Average differences between manual (average of recordings by two clinicians) and automated readings were -5 +/- 4.3/0.6 +/- 4.6 mmHg (seated), 0.0 +/- 6.0/-1.8 +/- 4.7 mmHg (standing) and -1.6 +/- 5.1/-0.7 +/- 5.1 mmHg (supine). CONCLUSIONS: The device meets the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's standard. Comparing the results with the modified BHS protocol, it was found that the device earned the highest BHS grade of 'A' both for systolic and for diastolic blood pressures.
OBJECTIVE: To test the SpaceLabs Medical 90217 ambulatory blood pressure monitor for compliance with The Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's standard and a modification of the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol. METHODS: The study concerned 85 subjects aged 17-88 years with various arm circumferences and ranges of blood pressure. Resting casual blood pressure was 135 +/- 24/76 +/- 14 mmHg (mean +/- SD). For each subject nine readings of the 90217 device were compared with auscultatory reference readings of two independent observers who used a dual stethoscope. The measurements were performed with subjects standing, sitting and supine. The manual reference readings were alternated with the 90217 monitor's readings. RESULTS: Average differences between manual (average of recordings by two clinicians) and automated readings were -5 +/- 4.3/0.6 +/- 4.6 mmHg (seated), 0.0 +/- 6.0/-1.8 +/- 4.7 mmHg (standing) and -1.6 +/- 5.1/-0.7 +/- 5.1 mmHg (supine). CONCLUSIONS: The device meets the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's standard. Comparing the results with the modified BHS protocol, it was found that the device earned the highest BHS grade of 'A' both for systolic and for diastolic blood pressures.
Authors: Addie L Fortmann; Linda C Gallo; Scott C Roesch; Paul J Mills; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Greg A Talavera; John P Elder; Karen A Matthews Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2012-12
Authors: Daniel E Brown; Lynnette L Sievert; Lynn A Morrison; Nichole Rahberg; Angela Reza Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Ralph J Delfino; Thomas Tjoa; Daniel L Gillen; Norbert Staimer; Andrea Polidori; Mohammad Arhami; Larry Jamner; Constantinos Sioutas; John Longhurst Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Carlos J Rodriguez; Zhezhen Jin; Joseph E Schwartz; Daniel Turner-Lloveras; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio; Shunichi Homma Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Christopher J Morris; Taylor E Purvis; Joseph Mistretta; Kun Hu; Frank A J L Scheer Journal: J Biol Rhythms Date: 2017-03-27 Impact factor: 3.182
Authors: Joseph T Flynn; Christopher B Pierce; Edgar R Miller; Jeanne Charleston; Joshua A Samuels; Juan Kupferman; Susan L Furth; Bradley A Warady Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Carlos Jose Rodriguez; TanYa M Gwathmey; Zhezhen Jin; Joseph Schwartz; Bettina M Beech; Ralph L Sacco; Marco R Di Tullio; Shunichi Homma Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 4.312