Ayman Khairy M Hassan1, Ayman H Shaamash2, Asmaa G Mohamed3, Salwa R Demitry1, Nady A Razik4. 1. Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. 3. Cardiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. 4. Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt. nadyabdelrazik@aun.edu.eg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) during hospitalization requires an accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement, mainly by invasive intra-arterial reading. Nevertheless, little is known about the precision of non-invasive (NI) central BP measurements in HDP. We aimed to assess the accuracy of NI central BP assessment in comparison to invasive BP measurement in HDP. This cross-sectional study included all patients with HDP that were admitted to university hospitals for high BP control, from December 2018 till December 2019, and 10 healthy matched non-hypertensive controls. Patients were compared for demographic, anthropometric, and echocardiographic data. In all subjects, invasive BP assessment was done by radial arterial cannulation and NI assessment of BP was performed by an oscillometric automated device (Mobil-O-Graph); the comparison was done after initial control of BP. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included and divided into 3 groups (pre-existing hypertension (HTN), gestational HTN, and pre-eclampsia). There was no statistically significant difference between NI central and invasive methods in measuring both systolic BP (SBP) (126.39 ± 14.5 vs 127.43 ± 15.3, p = 0.5) and diastolic BP (82.41 ± 9.0 vs 83.78 ± 8.9, p = 0.14) among the total studied population. A strong positive correlation was found between NI central and invasive SBP (r = 0.96, p < 0.001). HDP was associated with an increase in arterial stiffness, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, and complications. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive measurement of BP using oscillometric automated devices is as accurate as the invasive method, and it is a practical safe method in pregnant women with hypertensive disorders (CTR no. = NCT04303871).
BACKGROUND: The management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) during hospitalization requires an accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement, mainly by invasive intra-arterial reading. Nevertheless, little is known about the precision of non-invasive (NI) central BP measurements in HDP. We aimed to assess the accuracy of NI central BP assessment in comparison to invasive BP measurement in HDP. This cross-sectional study included all patients with HDP that were admitted to university hospitals for high BP control, from December 2018 till December 2019, and 10 healthy matched non-hypertensive controls. Patients were compared for demographic, anthropometric, and echocardiographic data. In all subjects, invasive BP assessment was done by radial arterial cannulation and NI assessment of BP was performed by an oscillometric automated device (Mobil-O-Graph); the comparison was done after initial control of BP. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included and divided into 3 groups (pre-existing hypertension (HTN), gestational HTN, and pre-eclampsia). There was no statistically significant difference between NI central and invasive methods in measuring both systolic BP (SBP) (126.39 ± 14.5 vs 127.43 ± 15.3, p = 0.5) and diastolic BP (82.41 ± 9.0 vs 83.78 ± 8.9, p = 0.14) among the total studied population. A strong positive correlation was found between NI central and invasive SBP (r = 0.96, p < 0.001). HDP was associated with an increase in arterial stiffness, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, and complications. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive measurement of BP using oscillometric automated devices is as accurate as the invasive method, and it is a practical safe method in pregnant women with hypertensive disorders (CTR no. = NCT04303871).
Entities:
Keywords:
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; Invasive BP; Mobil-O-Graph; Oscillometric non-invasive BP
Authors: Laura A Magee; Anouk Pels; Michael Helewa; Evelyne Rey; Peter von Dadelszen Journal: Pregnancy Hypertens Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 2.899
Authors: Bryan Williams; Giuseppe Mancia; Wilko Spiering; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Michel Azizi; Michel Burnier; Denis L Clement; Antonio Coca; Giovanni de Simone; Anna Dominiczak; Thomas Kahan; Felix Mahfoud; Josep Redon; Luis Ruilope; Alberto Zanchetti; Mary Kerins; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Reinhold Kreutz; Stephane Laurent; Gregory Y H Lip; Richard McManus; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Frank Ruschitzka; Roland E Schmieder; Evgeny Shlyakhto; Costas Tsioufis; Victor Aboyans; Ileana Desormais Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Maximilian B Franz; Maximiliane Burgmann; Anna Neubauer; Harald Zeisler; Ramona Sanani; Michael Gottsauner-Wolf; Barbara Schiessl; Martin Andreas Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Sandra A Lowe; Lucy Bowyer; Karin Lust; Lawrence P McMahon; Mark Morton; Robyn A North; Michael Paech; Joanne M Said Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 2.100