Victoria A Eley1, Leonie Roberts2, Leah Rickards3, Anita Pelecanos4, Annika Blackie5, Chu Zhang5, Rebecca Christensen2, Helen L Barrett2. 1. The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield St, Herston, 4006 Queensland, Australia; The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4067, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: victoria.eley@health.qld.gov.au. 2. The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield St, Herston, 4006 Queensland, Australia; The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4067, Queensland, Australia. 3. The Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield St, Herston, 4006 Queensland, Australia. 4. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston Rd, Herston, 4006 Queensland, Australia. 5. The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4067, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To obtain arm and finger measurements of women ≥32 weeks gestation to determine: the requirement for different arm cuff sizes; the suitability of available finger cuffs in this population; the best predictor of arm conicity; the frequency of cuff placement on the forearm or leg. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational pilot study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Right and left mid-arm circumference (MAC) and to compare these to the recommended cuff sizes; right and left finger circumference; right and left arm conicity; the responses of women to a three-point Likert scale regarding cuff placement. RESULTS: Measurements were obtained for 450 women at an Australian tertiary hospital with a median (IQR) gestation of 35.7 (34.0-37.0); 299 (66.4%) were Caucasian and 35 (7.8%) had gestational hypertension. The median (IQR) body mass index (BMI) was 29.6 kg/m2 (26.2-33.4), range 18.0-62.2. Median (IQR) right MAC was 29.9 cm (27.4-33), range 19.6-53.2. Based on right MAC, 58 (12.9%) required a large cuff and 6 (1.3%) a thigh cuff. Maximum right finger circumference was 7.0 cm. BMI, weight and right MAC were positively correlated with right arm conicity: r = 0.51, 0.42 and 0.45, p < 0.001 for all. R2 for each were 0.26, 0.17 and 0.20. Fourteen (3.1%) reported cuff placement on the forearm or leg. CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of women are likely to be unsuited to traditional arm cuffs. Available finger-cuffs would suit this population. BMI could potentially be used to select women with cone-shaped arms for future studies of alternative devices.
OBJECTIVES: To obtain arm and finger measurements of women ≥32 weeks gestation to determine: the requirement for different arm cuff sizes; the suitability of available finger cuffs in this population; the best predictor of arm conicity; the frequency of cuff placement on the forearm or leg. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational pilot study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Right and left mid-arm circumference (MAC) and to compare these to the recommended cuff sizes; right and left finger circumference; right and left arm conicity; the responses of women to a three-point Likert scale regarding cuff placement. RESULTS: Measurements were obtained for 450 women at an Australian tertiary hospital with a median (IQR) gestation of 35.7 (34.0-37.0); 299 (66.4%) were Caucasian and 35 (7.8%) had gestational hypertension. The median (IQR) body mass index (BMI) was 29.6 kg/m2 (26.2-33.4), range 18.0-62.2. Median (IQR) right MAC was 29.9 cm (27.4-33), range 19.6-53.2. Based on right MAC, 58 (12.9%) required a large cuff and 6 (1.3%) a thigh cuff. Maximum right finger circumference was 7.0 cm. BMI, weight and right MAC were positively correlated with right arm conicity: r = 0.51, 0.42 and 0.45, p < 0.001 for all. R2 for each were 0.26, 0.17 and 0.20. Fourteen (3.1%) reported cuff placement on the forearm or leg. CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of women are likely to be unsuited to traditional arm cuffs. Available finger-cuffs would suit this population. BMI could potentially be used to select women with cone-shaped arms for future studies of alternative devices.
Authors: Victoria Eley; Rebecca Christensen; Louis Guy; Kerstin Wyssusek; Anita Pelecanos; Benjamin Dodd; Michael Stowasser; Andre van Zundert Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Philipp Helmer; Daniel Helf; Michael Sammeth; Bernd Winkler; Sebastian Hottenrott; Patrick Meybohm; Peter Kranke Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Ming Jian Lim; Chin Wen Tan; Hon Sen Tan; Rehena Sultana; Victoria Eley; Ban Leong Sng Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 2.217