Gregory K Davis1, Lynne M Roberts, George J Mangos, Mark A Brown. 1. aDepartment of Women's Health bDepartment of Renal Medicine cDepartment of Medicine, University of New South Wales, St George Hospital, Kogarah, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To find a suitable replacement for mercury sphygmomanometry to measure blood pressure (BP) accurately in normal and hypertensive pregnancy. METHODS: Two parallel validation studies were carried out in 340 pregnant women, 170 with a hypertensive disorder and 170 normotensive women. An auscultatory hybrid sphygmomanometer, A&D UM-101, and a professional automated oscillometric device for office and clinic use, Omron HEM-907, were tested. Using a modified British Hypertension Society (BHS) Protocol, nine sequential BP recordings were taken alternating between the mercury sphygmomanometer and the study device. The first readings for each device were discarded, and three differences between mercury and study device were calculated for each woman for SBP and DBP. Main outcome measures were the percentages of BP readings that were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg absolute difference from mercury sphygmomanometry. RESULTS: Women in both studies were an average of 34 weeks' gestation and of similar ethnicity, age and BMI. In hypertensive women, 29% had preeclampsia and 73% were receiving antihypertensives. Amongst hypertensive women, SBP was within 5 mmHg of mercury BP in 94% of readings with the auscultatory device and 75% with the automated device (P = 0.021); DBP was within 5 mmHg in 97 and 61% readings, respectively (P = 0.001). Results were similar amongst normotensive pregnant women. Both devices achieved an A/A rating according to the BHS protocol. CONCLUSION: The auscultatory hybrid sphygmomanometer is more accurate than the automated oscillometric device in pregnancy, specifically in hypertensive pregnancies. It is an acceptable replacement for mercury sphygmomanometry in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE: To find a suitable replacement for mercury sphygmomanometry to measure blood pressure (BP) accurately in normal and hypertensive pregnancy. METHODS: Two parallel validation studies were carried out in 340 pregnant women, 170 with a hypertensive disorder and 170 normotensive women. An auscultatory hybrid sphygmomanometer, A&D UM-101, and a professional automated oscillometric device for office and clinic use, Omron HEM-907, were tested. Using a modified British Hypertension Society (BHS) Protocol, nine sequential BP recordings were taken alternating between the mercury sphygmomanometer and the study device. The first readings for each device were discarded, and three differences between mercury and study device were calculated for each woman for SBP and DBP. Main outcome measures were the percentages of BP readings that were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg absolute difference from mercury sphygmomanometry. RESULTS:Women in both studies were an average of 34 weeks' gestation and of similar ethnicity, age and BMI. In hypertensivewomen, 29% had preeclampsia and 73% were receiving antihypertensives. Amongst hypertensivewomen, SBP was within 5 mmHg of mercury BP in 94% of readings with the auscultatory device and 75% with the automated device (P = 0.021); DBP was within 5 mmHg in 97 and 61% readings, respectively (P = 0.001). Results were similar amongst normotensive pregnant women. Both devices achieved an A/A rating according to the BHS protocol. CONCLUSION: The auscultatory hybrid sphygmomanometer is more accurate than the automated oscillometric device in pregnancy, specifically in hypertensive pregnancies. It is an acceptable replacement for mercury sphygmomanometry in pregnancy.
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: Liona C Poon; Laura A Magee; Stefan Verlohren; Andrew Shennan; Peter von Dadelszen; Eyal Sheiner; Eran Hadar; Gerard Visser; Fabricio Da Silva Costa; Anil Kapur; Fionnuala McAuliffe; Amala Nazareth; Muna Tahlak; Anne B Kihara; Hema Divakar; H David McIntyre; Vincenzo Berghella; Huixia Yang; Roberto Romero; Kypros H Nicolaides; Nir Melamed; Moshe Hod Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 4.447
Authors: Mark A Brown; Lynne Roberts; Anna Hoffman; Amanda Henry; George Mangos; Anthony O'Sullivan; Franziska Pettit; George Youssef; Lily Xu; Gregory K Davis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 5.501