Literature DB >> 11040223

Arterial stiffness as underlying mechanism of disagreement between an oscillometric blood pressure monitor and a sphygmomanometer.

N M van Popele1, W J Bos, N A de Beer, D A van Der Kuip, A Hofman, D E Grobbee, J C Witteman.   

Abstract

Oscillometric blood pressure devices tend to overestimate systolic blood pressure and underestimate diastolic blood pressure compared with sphygmomanometers. Recent studies indicate that discrepancies in performance between these devices may differ between healthy and diabetic subjects. Arterial stiffness in diabetics could be the underlying factor explaining these differences. We studied differences between a Dinamap oscillometric blood pressure monitor and a random-zero sphygmomanometer in relation to arterial stiffness in 1808 healthy elderly subjects. The study was conducted within the Rotterdam Study, a population-based cohort study of subjects aged 55 years and older. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure differences between a Dinamap and a random-zero sphygmomanometer were related to arterial stiffness, as measured by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity. Increased arterial stiffness was associated with higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings by the Dinamap compared with the random-zero sphygmomanometer, independent of age, gender, and average mean blood pressure level of both devices. The beta-coefficient (95% CI) was 0.25 (0.00 to 0.50) mm Hg/(m/s) for the systolic blood pressure difference and 0.35 (0.20 to 0.50) mm Hg/(m/s) for the diastolic blood pressure difference. The results indicate that a Dinamap oscillometric blood pressure device, in comparison to a random-zero sphygmomanometer, overestimates systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings in subjects with stiff arteries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11040223     DOI: 10.1161/01.hyp.36.4.484

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hypertension        ISSN: 0194-911X            Impact factor:   10.190


  23 in total

1.  Difference in blood pressure readings with mercury and automated devices: Impact on hypertension prevalence estimates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Authors:  Arnaud Chiolero; Jean-Pierre Gervasoni; Anne Rwebogora; Marianna Balampama; Fred Paccaud; Pascal Bovet
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Influence of Age on Upper Arm Cuff Blood Pressure Measurement.

Authors:  Dean S Picone; Martin G Schultz; Petr Otahal; J Andrew Black; Willem J Bos; Chen-Huan Chen; Hao-Min Cheng; Antoine Cremer; Nathan Dwyer; Ricardo Fonseca; Alun D Hughes; Hack-Lyoung Kim; Peter S Lacy; Esben Laugesen; Nobuyuki Ohte; Stefano Omboni; Christian Ott; Telmo Pereira; Giacomo Pucci; Philip Roberts-Thomson; Niklas B Rossen; Roland E Schmieder; Daisuke Sueta; Kenji Takazawa; Jiguang Wang; Thomas Weber; Berend E Westerhof; Bryan Williams; Hirotsugu Yamada; Eiichiro Yamamoto; James E Sharman
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 10.190

3.  Central pressure should not be used in clinical practice.

Authors:  Gary F Mitchell
Journal:  Artery Res       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 0.597

Review 4.  Utility of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in children and adolescents.

Authors:  John W Graves; Mohammed Mahdi Althaf
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2006-07-06       Impact factor: 3.714

Review 5.  Determining which automatic digital blood pressure device performs adequately: a systematic review.

Authors:  Y Wan; C Heneghan; R Stevens; R J McManus; A Ward; R Perera; M Thompson; L Tarassenko; D Mant
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 3.012

6.  Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring: a joint scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American Society Of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association.

Authors:  Thomas G Pickering; Nancy Houston Miller; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Lawrence R Krakoff; Nancy T Artinian; David Goff
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2008-05-22       Impact factor: 10.190

7.  Aortic pressure-area relation in Marfan patients with and without beta blocking agents: a new non-invasive approach.

Authors:  G J Nollen; B E Westerhof; M Groenink; A Osnabrugge; E E van der Wall; B J M Mulder
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.994

8.  Agreement of blood pressure measurements between random-zero and standard mercury sphygmomanometers.

Authors:  Wenjie Yang; Dongfeng Gu; Jing Chen; Cashell E Jaquish; D C Rao; Xigui Wu; James E Hixson; Xiufang Duan; Tanika N Kelly; L Lee Hamm; Paul K Whelton; Jiang He
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.378

9.  Assessing the accuracy of the OMRON HEM-907XL oscillometric blood pressure measurement device in patients with nondialytic chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Jordana B Cohen; Tiffany C Wong; Bruce S Alpert; Raymond R Townsend
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 3.738

10.  Oscillometric measurement of systolic and diastolic blood pressures validated in a physiologic mathematical model.

Authors:  Charles F Babbs
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 2.819

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.