OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of six ambulatory blood pressure measuring systems at low, medium and high blood pressures. RESULTS: The CH-Druck, Profilomat, SpaceLabs 90207 and Novacor DIASYS 200R, having previously achieved A to C grading for systolic and diastolic blood pressures according to the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol and having fulfilled the criteria of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, have been recommended for measurement of ambulatory blood pressure in clinical practice; the Pressurometer IV and Takeda TM-2420, achieved only C and D grades and failed to satisfy the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criteria. In this study the data from the original validations are re-analysed for three pressure ranges of systolic and diastolic blood pressures: low range < or = 130/80 mmHg, medium range 130-160/80-100 mmHg and high range > or = 160/100 mmHg. All six devices maintained their overall grading or improved them slightly in the low and medium blood pressure ranges, but in the high blood pressure range the CH-Druck slipped from an overall A/A grading to B/C, the Profilomat from B/A to C/D, the SpaceLabs from B/B to C/C and the Pressurometer IV from C/D to D/D. The Takeda remained unchanged with a D grading, but the results within this grading were worse in the higher blood pressure range, and the Novacor rose from C/C to C/B. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the CH-Druck is the most accurate ambulatory system across the pressure range, although it does not perform as well in the high blood pressure range as in the medium and low blood pressure ranges. The SpaceLabs 90207 is accurate in the low and medium blood pressure ranges and reasonably accurate in the high blood pressure range. If blood pressures only in the low and medium ranges are to be measured, a wider selection of ambulatory systems becomes available because, in addition to the CH-Druck and SpaceLabs 90207, the Profiloat and Novacor DIASYS 200R are accurate.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of six ambulatory blood pressure measuring systems at low, medium and high blood pressures. RESULTS: The CH-Druck, Profilomat, SpaceLabs 90207 and Novacor DIASYS 200R, having previously achieved A to C grading for systolic and diastolic blood pressures according to the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol and having fulfilled the criteria of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, have been recommended for measurement of ambulatory blood pressure in clinical practice; the Pressurometer IV and Takeda TM-2420, achieved only C and D grades and failed to satisfy the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criteria. In this study the data from the original validations are re-analysed for three pressure ranges of systolic and diastolic blood pressures: low range < or = 130/80 mmHg, medium range 130-160/80-100 mmHg and high range > or = 160/100 mmHg. All six devices maintained their overall grading or improved them slightly in the low and medium blood pressure ranges, but in the high blood pressure range the CH-Druck slipped from an overall A/A grading to B/C, the Profilomat from B/A to C/D, the SpaceLabs from B/B to C/C and the Pressurometer IV from C/D to D/D. The Takeda remained unchanged with a D grading, but the results within this grading were worse in the higher blood pressure range, and the Novacor rose from C/C to C/B. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that the CH-Druck is the most accurate ambulatory system across the pressure range, although it does not perform as well in the high blood pressure range as in the medium and low blood pressure ranges. The SpaceLabs 90207 is accurate in the low and medium blood pressure ranges and reasonably accurate in the high blood pressure range. If blood pressures only in the low and medium ranges are to be measured, a wider selection of ambulatory systems becomes available because, in addition to the CH-Druck and SpaceLabs 90207, the Profiloat and Novacor DIASYS 200R are accurate.
Authors: Mary E Charlson; Carlos Gustavo de Moraes; Alissa Link; Martin T Wells; Gregory Harmon; Janey C Peterson; Robert Ritch; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-05-25 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: T D Ruddy; J M Wright; D Savard; S P Handa; A Chockalingam; L Fischer; A P Boulet Journal: Cardiovasc Drugs Ther Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 3.727
Authors: Yusuf I Alihanoglu; Mehmet Kayrak; Mehmet S Ulgen; Mehmet Yazici; Mehmet Yazici; Remzi Yilmaz; Kenan Demir; Yildiz Dogan; Murat Sizer; Hakan Ozhan; Fatih Koc; Sait Bodur Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 3.738