M K Park1, S W Menard, C Yuan. 1. Department of Pediatrics, MSC 7734, University of Texas Health Science Center, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900, USA. parkm@uthscsa.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the differences in blood pressure readings between the auscultatory and oscillometric (Dinamap model 8100; Critikon, Tampa, Fla) methods. DESIGN: Survey of 2 blood pressure instruments. SETTING: Public schools. PARTICIPANTS: Seven thousand two hundred eight schoolchildren aged 5 through 17 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Blood pressure levels. RESULTS: For all children combined, Dinamap systolic pressure readings were 10 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, -4 to 24 mm Hg) than the auscultatory systolic pressure readings. Dinamap diastolic pressure readings were 5 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, -14 to 23 mm Hg) than the auscultatory Korotkoff phase V diastolic pressure readings. CONCLUSION: These findings preclude the interchange of readings by the 2 methods. Caution must be exercised in the diagnosis of hypertension when an automated device is used.
OBJECTIVE: To study the differences in blood pressure readings between the auscultatory and oscillometric (Dinamap model 8100; Critikon, Tampa, Fla) methods. DESIGN: Survey of 2 blood pressure instruments. SETTING: Public schools. PARTICIPANTS: Seven thousand two hundred eight schoolchildren aged 5 through 17 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Blood pressure levels. RESULTS: For all children combined, Dinamap systolic pressure readings were 10 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, -4 to 24 mm Hg) than the auscultatory systolic pressure readings. Dinamap diastolic pressure readings were 5 mm Hg higher (95% confidence interval, -14 to 23 mm Hg) than the auscultatory Korotkoff phase V diastolic pressure readings. CONCLUSION: These findings preclude the interchange of readings by the 2 methods. Caution must be exercised in the diagnosis of hypertension when an automated device is used.
Authors: Elaine M Urbina; Philip R Khoury; Connie E McCoy; Stephen R Daniels; Lawrence M Dolan; Thomas R Kimball Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Abdullah A Al Salloum; Mohammad I El Mouzan; Abdullah S Al Herbish; Ahmad A Al Omar; Mansour M Qurashi Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.526