Literature DB >> 9576161

Comparative accuracy of three automated techniques in the noninvasive estimation of central blood pressure in men.

K G Lehmann1, J A Gelman, M A Weber, A Lafrades.   

Abstract

Automated devices have regularly replaced manual sphygmomanometry for the determination of blood pressure not only in homes and clinics, but also in emergency and critical care settings. Few studies exist that correctly assess the accuracy of these devices, and even fewer that specifically compare commercially available units that rely on different physiologic events for measurement. Six hundred pressure measurements were obtained from 120 subjects using 1 of 3 randomly selected blood pressure monitors. In addition, central arterial pressure measurements were obtained simultaneously and directly from the ascending aorta of each subject. Overall, these devices tended to overestimate diastolic (+2.5 mm Hg, p < 0.0001) and mean (+3.8 mm Hg, p < 0.0001) pressures, but not systolic (+0.7 mm Hg, p = NS) pressure. Compared with the other 2 devices, device I, relying on oscillometric detection, demonstrated a significantly smaller mean absolute error for diastolic pressure (4.9 +/- 3.0 vs 7.0 +/- 4.8 and 6.2 +/- 5.3 mm Hg, p < 0.0001) and mean pressure (4.0 +/- 3.2 vs 7.8 +/- 5.9 and 8.6 +/- 7.5 mm Hg, p < 0.0001), and a trend toward smaller error with systolic pressure (6.8 +/- 6.5 vs 7.3 +/- 6.8 and 8.0 +/-5.6 mm Hg, p = 0.19). Clinically significant (+/-10 mm Hg) errors were common with each device (24.8% overall), but serious (+/-20 mm Hg) errors were unusual (3.2%) and did not occur at all with device I during diastolic and mean pressure measurement. All of the devices tested could be expected to perform satisfactorily in most clinical settings provided that an average error of 4.0 to 8.6 mm Hg is tolerable. This level of accuracy typically extended throughout the range of pressures anticipated in most noncritical clinical situations. As implemented in the devices tested, noninvasive measurement by oscillometry with stepped deflation is more accurate than automated auscultation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9576161     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(98)00080-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  Detection of hypertension in the emergency department.

Authors:  J Fleming; C Meredith; J Henry
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.740

2.  Influence of sex on the accuracy of oscillometric-derived blood pressures.

Authors:  Skand D Bhatt; Alan L Hinderliter; George A Stouffer
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2010-11-24       Impact factor: 3.738

Review 3.  Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients' resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review.

Authors:  Noa Kallioinen; Andrew Hill; Mark S Horswill; Helen E Ward; Marcus O Watson
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.844

4.  REAVER: A program for improved analysis of high-resolution vascular network images.

Authors:  Bruce A Corliss; Richard W Doty; Corbin Mathews; Paul A Yates; Tingting Zhang; Shayn M Peirce
Journal:  Microcirculation       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 2.628

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.