Literature DB >> 4014120

The random-zero versus the standard mercury sphygmomanometer: a systematic blood pressure difference.

R de Gaudemaris, A R Folsom, R J Prineas, R V Luepker.   

Abstract

The random-zero and standard mercury sphygmomanometers are used frequently, and sometimes interchangeably, in epidemiologic studies. To determine whether there is a systematic difference between them, the authors measured systolic, fourth-phase, and fifth-phase diastolic blood pressures using both sphygmomanometers simultaneously in a series of six experiments. For most experiments, the system for simultaneous blood pressure measurements employed one cuff connected to both sphygmomanometers, which were carefully calibrated and read by two trained technicians using a double stethoscope. Order of use of the random-zero sphygmomanometer was randomly assigned, and technicians were blind to each others readings. At deflation rates of 2 mmHg/second, readings of the random-zero sphygmomanometer were systematically lower than those of the standard mercury sphygmomanometer: -0.9 mmHg for systolic, -1.8 mmHg for fourth-phase, and -1.8 mmHg for fifth-phase diastolic blood pressures (all differences, p less than 0.001). The difference persisted after adjustment for subject age, sex, heart rate, blood pressure level, observer, and room temperature, and was present for varying deflation rates. However, by draining the residual mercury from a random-zero sphygmomanometer and using the instrument as if it were a standard mercury sphygmomanometer, much of the difference between the two was eliminated. This suggests that the mechanism for the difference relates to the increased height of mercury in the random-zero manometer tube. The authors conclude that the random-zero and standard mercury sphygmomanometers should not be used interchangeably in epidemiologic studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1985        PMID: 4014120     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  9 in total

1.  Blood pressure changes associated with tilting in normotensive subjects: differences in response pattern as measured by oscillometry and auscultation.

Authors:  M B Sidery; I A Macdonald
Journal:  Clin Auton Res       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 4.435

2.  The Dinamap 1846SX automated blood pressure recorder: comparison with the Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer under field conditions.

Authors:  P H Whincup; N G Bruce; D G Cook; A G Shaper
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Field evaluation of the Copal UA-231 automatic sphygmomanometer.

Authors:  S Rogers; G D Smith; W Doyle
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Measurement error in the Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer: what damage has been done and what can we learn?

Authors:  R M Conroy; E O'Brien; K O'Malley; N Atkins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-15

5.  The Hawksley random zero sphygmomanometer. Don't condemn it without proper evidence.

Authors:  D Churchill; M Beevers; D G Beevers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-07-10

6.  A proposal for scientific validation of instruments for indirect blood pressure measurement at rest, during exercise, and in critical care.

Authors:  Y Iyriboz; C M Hearon
Journal:  J Clin Monit       Date:  1994-05

7.  Trends in blood pressure and hypertension detection, treatment, and control 1980 to 2009: the Minnesota Heart Survey.

Authors:  Russell V Luepker; Lyn M Steffen; David R Jacobs; Xia Zhou; Henry Blackburn
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Measuring cardiovascular disease risk factor levels: international comparisons between Bremen-north/west (Germany) and two southeastern New England (USA) cities.

Authors:  A R Assaf; U Helmert; T L Lasater; R A Carleton; E Greiser
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1995

9.  Agreement of blood pressure measurements between random-zero and standard mercury sphygmomanometers.

Authors:  Wenjie Yang; Dongfeng Gu; Jing Chen; Cashell E Jaquish; D C Rao; Xigui Wu; James E Hixson; Xiufang Duan; Tanika N Kelly; L Lee Hamm; Paul K Whelton; Jiang He
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.378

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.