OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods for screening interarm difference (IAD) of blood pressure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study compared two methods for double-arm measurements: (i) conventional measurement (CM) and (ii) simultaneous automatic measurement (SAM). A total of 118 patients with two or more cardiovascular risk factors and a mean age of 59±17 years were referred to two internal clinics. CM was taken with a validated aneroid manometer in sitting position on the right and left arm subsequently and vice versa. SAM was taken three times in sitting position using a validated automatic oscillometric device equipped with two cuffs for simultaneous double-arm measurements. RESULTS: The average absolute IAD of the conventional systolic value (4.9 mmHg) was significantly higher than the average absolute IAD of the SAM pressures averaged from two (3.7 mmHg; P<0.03) and three measurements (3.8 mmHg; P<0.05). The standard deviations of IADs were significantly higher (P<0.05) for the conventional systolic and diastolic measurements (4.1/3.1 mmHg) than for SAM averaged from two and three (3.0/2.3 and 3.2/2.6 mmHg, respectively) measurements. Differences of more than 20 mmHg for systolic pressure and/or 10 mmHg for diastolic pressures averaged from two CMs, two SAMs, and three SAMs were seen in 10 (9%), four (3%), and six (5%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: SAM provides smaller and more reproducible IADs than CM and therefore, most likely better estimates a patient's true IAD.
OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods for screening interarm difference (IAD) of blood pressure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study compared two methods for double-arm measurements: (i) conventional measurement (CM) and (ii) simultaneous automatic measurement (SAM). A total of 118 patients with two or more cardiovascular risk factors and a mean age of 59±17 years were referred to two internal clinics. CM was taken with a validated aneroid manometer in sitting position on the right and left arm subsequently and vice versa. SAM was taken three times in sitting position using a validated automatic oscillometric device equipped with two cuffs for simultaneous double-arm measurements. RESULTS: The average absolute IAD of the conventional systolic value (4.9 mmHg) was significantly higher than the average absolute IAD of the SAM pressures averaged from two (3.7 mmHg; P<0.03) and three measurements (3.8 mmHg; P<0.05). The standard deviations of IADs were significantly higher (P<0.05) for the conventional systolic and diastolic measurements (4.1/3.1 mmHg) than for SAM averaged from two and three (3.0/2.3 and 3.2/2.6 mmHg, respectively) measurements. Differences of more than 20 mmHg for systolic pressure and/or 10 mmHg for diastolic pressures averaged from two CMs, two SAMs, and three SAMs were seen in 10 (9%), four (3%), and six (5%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: SAM provides smaller and more reproducible IADs than CM and therefore, most likely better estimates a patient's true IAD.
Authors: Claire Lorraine Schwartz; Christopher Clark; Constantinos Koshiaris; Paramjit S Gill; Shelia M Greenfield; Sayeed M Haque; Gurdip Heer; Amanpreet Johal; Ramandeep Kaur; Jonathan Mant; Una Martin; Mohamed A Mohammed; Sally Wood; Richard J McManus Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Gurpreet S Wander; Sinead T J McDonagh; M Srinivasa Rao; R Alagesan; J C Mohan; Ajit Bhagwat; A K Pancholia; M Viswanathan; Manoj Bhavrilal Chopda; A Purnanand; P L N Kapardhi; Arun R Vadavi; R Selvaraj; Pankaj Aneja; Suhas Hardas; Neil Bordoloi; N Sivakadaksham; Nilesh Goswami; Christopher E Clark; Willem J Verberk Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2022-07-10 Impact factor: 2.885
Authors: Niels V van der Hoeven; Sophie Lodestijn; Stephanie Nanninga; Gert A van Montfrans; Bert-Jan H van den Born Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 3.738