OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 2 automated blood pressure monitors against mercury sphygmomanometry and intra-arterial blood pressure determination in women with preeclampsia. STUDY DESIGN: The auscultatory and oscillometric monitors were compared with mercury sphygmomanometry according to the British Hypertension Society protocol and criteria of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation in a group of 30 women with proteinuric preeclampsia. In addition both monitors were compared with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements in a group of 6 women with severe preeclampsia. The mean (+/- SD) of the differences was calculated and a paired t test was used to compare values obtained with each monitor with intra-arterial measurements. RESULTS: Compared with mercury sphygmomanometry the auscultatory QuietTrak monitor markedly underestimated systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 13 +/- 15 mm Hg. The oscillometric SpaceLabs 90207 monitor also underestimated systolic pressure by 10 +/- 10 mm Hg and diastolic pressure by 8 +/- 7 mm Hg. According to the British Hypertension Society grading criteria both monitors achieved the lowest grade (D) for recording systolic and diastolic pressure. The 2 monitors also did not meet the accuracy criteria stipulated by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Compared with intra-arterial readings the SpaceLabs monitor significantly underestimated systolic and mean arterial pressures (by 19 and 7 mm Hg, respectively, P <. 01). The QuietTrak monitor significantly underestimated systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures (by 25 mm Hg, P <.05, 18 mm Hg, P <.01, and 20 mm Hg, P <.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Neither monitor can be recommended for clinical use in women with proteinuric preeclampsia.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 2 automated blood pressure monitors against mercury sphygmomanometry and intra-arterial blood pressure determination in women with preeclampsia. STUDY DESIGN: The auscultatory and oscillometric monitors were compared with mercury sphygmomanometry according to the British Hypertension Society protocol and criteria of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation in a group of 30 women with proteinuric preeclampsia. In addition both monitors were compared with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements in a group of 6 women with severe preeclampsia. The mean (+/- SD) of the differences was calculated and a paired t test was used to compare values obtained with each monitor with intra-arterial measurements. RESULTS: Compared with mercury sphygmomanometry the auscultatory QuietTrak monitor markedly underestimated systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 13 +/- 15 mm Hg. The oscillometric SpaceLabs 90207 monitor also underestimated systolic pressure by 10 +/- 10 mm Hg and diastolic pressure by 8 +/- 7 mm Hg. According to the British Hypertension Society grading criteria both monitors achieved the lowest grade (D) for recording systolic and diastolic pressure. The 2 monitors also did not meet the accuracy criteria stipulated by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Compared with intra-arterial readings the SpaceLabs monitor significantly underestimated systolic and mean arterial pressures (by 19 and 7 mm Hg, respectively, P <. 01). The QuietTrak monitor significantly underestimated systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures (by 25 mm Hg, P <.05, 18 mm Hg, P <.01, and 20 mm Hg, P <.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Neither monitor can be recommended for clinical use in women with proteinuric preeclampsia.
Authors: Natalie A Bello; Jonathan J Woolley; Kirsten Lawrence Cleary; Louise Falzon; Bruce S Alpert; Suzanne Oparil; Gary Cutter; Ronald Wapner; Paul Muntner; Alan T Tita; Daichi Shimbo Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: George S Stergiou; Eamon Dolan; Anastasios Kollias; Neil R Poulter; Andrew Shennan; Jan A Staessen; Zhen-Yu Zhang; Michael A Weber Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Hannah L Nathan; Kate Duhig; Nicola Vousden; Elodie Lawley; Paul T Seed; Jane Sandall; Mrutyunjaya B Bellad; Adrian C Brown; Lucy C Chappell; Shivaprasad S Goudar; Muchabayiwa F Gidiri; Andrew H Shennan Journal: Trials Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 2.279