Literature DB >> 10394117

Indirect and direct simultaneous, comparative blood pressure measurements with the Bosotron 2 device.

F Weber1, M Lindemann, R Erbel, T Philipp.   

Abstract

Testing the accuracy of the automatic blood pressure measuring device Bosotron 2, we performed simultaneous, same-arm, comparative blood pressure measurements with three instruments (A, B, and C) of the device and by auscultation in the antecubital fossa by a trained observer in 24 volunteers each. The volunteers were evenly matched for age, sex, and blood pressure level. The mean systolic differences and their standard deviations (24 subjects each, n = 288 single measurements) were -1.32+/-3.8 mm Hg for instrument A, -0.99+/-3.9 mm Hg for instrument B, and -1.12+/-5.0 mm Hg for instrument C. The corresponding values for the diastolic differences were -2.71+/-4.4, -3.46+/-4.3, and -2.72+/-3.9 mm Hg, respectively. Combining the results for the three instruments, the comparison yielded a good accuracy (mean difference) and sufficient repeatability of the differences (standard deviation) for the systolic and diastolic blood pressures (systolic -1.14+/-4.3 mm Hg; diastolic -2.96+/-4.2 mm Hg). In addition to the British Hypertension Society protocol, in 33 patients with coronary artery disease the measurements using the three Bosotron 2 devices were compared with measurements within the aortic arch. The mean systolic/diastolic differences (+/-SD) were +1.45+/-4.3 and +7. 27+/-4.7 mm Hg for instrument A, +4.70+/-12.8 and +1.73+/-7.4 mm Hg for instrument B, and -3.74+/-8.0 and +5.61+/-2.6 mm Hg for instrument C. Combining the results of the three instruments, the blood pressure was determined to be only slightly higher (systolic +1.74+/-9.6 mm Hg; diastolic +4.87+/-5.6 mm Hg) by the Bosotron 2 R device as compared with the aortic arch pressure. The Bosotron 2 R device seems to be suitable for clinical use and for monitoring blood pressure during clinical-pharmacological studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10394117     DOI: 10.1159/000025924

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kidney Blood Press Res        ISSN: 1420-4096            Impact factor:   2.687


  4 in total

1.  A Meta-analysis to Determine the Validity of Taking Blood Pressure Using the Indirect Cuff Method.

Authors:  Scott J Dankel; Minsoo Kang; Takashi Abe; Jeremy P Loenneke
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 2.  Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients' resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review.

Authors:  Noa Kallioinen; Andrew Hill; Mark S Horswill; Helen E Ward; Marcus O Watson
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.844

3.  The impact of central blood pressure levels on the relationship between oscillometric and central blood pressure measurements: a multicenter invasive study.

Authors:  Yusuf I Alihanoglu; Mehmet Kayrak; Mehmet S Ulgen; Mehmet Yazici; Mehmet Yazici; Remzi Yilmaz; Kenan Demir; Yildiz Dogan; Murat Sizer; Hakan Ozhan; Fatih Koc; Sait Bodur
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 3.738

4.  Heart rate variability and blood pressure during dynamic and static exercise at similar heart rate levels.

Authors:  Matthias Weippert; Kristin Behrens; Annika Rieger; Regina Stoll; Steffi Kreuzfeld
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.