房颤患者两种血压测量方法的比较

目的探讨使用心脏监护仪和汞柱台式血压计测量房颤患者血压的一致性,为临床上选择正确的血压测量方法提供依据。方法随机选取住院治疗的房颤患者180例和正常心律患者160例,使用两种方法测量其血压,比较两种方法所测血压值有无差异。结果180例房颤患者使用监护仪测得的收缩压为（126±22）mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）,舒张压为（75±13）mmHg,使用汞柱台式血压计测得的收缩压为（134±25）mmHg,舒张压为（69±15）mmHg,两种方法所测得的血压值差异有统计学意义（收缩压比较：t=3．2230,P=0．0014;舒张压比较：t=4．0555,P=0．0001）。在160例正常心律患者使用这两种方法测得的收缩压分别为心脏监护仪测得（128±24）mmHg和汞柱方式血压计测得（129±25）mmHg,舒张压分别为心脏监护仪测得（78±11）mmHg和汞柱方式血压计测得（76±12）mmHg,两种方法测得的血压值差异无统计学意义（收缩压比较：t=0．3650,P=0．7154;舒张压比较：t=1．5541,P=0．1212）。结论房颤可能影响监护仪测量血压的准确性,为房颤患者测量血压时,宜使用汞柱式血压计。     

ICU患者心电监护与血压计监测血压的差异性研究

目的通过对ICU患者应用床边监护仪与汞柱血压仪监测血压的对比观察,探讨两种测量方法的差别。方法用多参数床边监护仪和汞柱式血压计分别对本组100例患者同时进行两种方法测量,记录分析每次测得收缩压和舒张压的数值。结果两种方法测得收缩压、舒张压值比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论多参数监护仪监测血压与汞柱式血压计监测血压值差异无统计学意义,具有较好的一致性,可靠性。     

电子血压计与汞柱血压计测量结果的比较

目的研究广州产博士医生KP-66型电子血压计与临床常用传统汞柱式血压计测得的血压数值是否一致。方法随机抽取受试者33例,分别用两种血压计测量血压,根据血压波动范围分为3组进行统计,分析测量结果差异。结果两种血压计测量血压结果差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论博士医生电子血压计可取代汞柱血压计,值得进一步推广应用。     

透析中应用电子血压计监测血压的可行性分析

目的探讨在血液透析过程中应用电子血压计替代立式汞柱式血压计为血液透析病人测量血压的可行性。方法选择维持性血液透析患者86例,透析过程中采用立式汞柱式血压计和欧姆龙HEM-907型电子血压计同步使用袖带法测量无内瘘侧肱动脉压,每个病人重复测量3～4次,用Bland—Ahman分析法评价两种方法的差别情况。根据美国ANSI／AAMISP10-2002（手动、电子或自动血压计》规定的标准,如果电子血压计与立式汞柱式血压计测得的血压差值的均值在4-5mmHg以内,血压差值的标准差在±8mmHg以内,则电子血压计的误差在可接受范围内。结果电子血压计与立式汞柱血压计测量的收缩压差值为（-1．61±5．48）mmHg,两种方法测得舒张压差值为（-2．68±5．02）minHg（P〉0．05）。结论欧姆龙HEM-907电子血压计测量血压可靠,可以替代立式汞柱式血压计听诊法,从而减轻血透室护士工作量。     

电子血压计和汞柱式血压计测量血压的差异性分析

目的比较电子血压计和汞柱式血压计测量血压值的差异。方法选择87例患者于8：00和16：00交替应用汞柱式血压计（台式）和欧姆龙电子血压计测量血压，比较两种血压计血压测量值的差异。结果电子血压计和汞柱式血压计所测量血压值比较，无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论在同等条件下，使用电子血压计和汞柱式血压计不影响血压测量值，临床上应用可以互换，且电子血压计利于家庭自测血压，应用前景良好。     

神经内科患者电子血压计与汞柱血压计血压监测结果比较

目的:探讨为神经内科患者使用电子血压计代替汞柱血压计测量血压的可行性.方法:用电子血压计和汞柱式血压计分别对本组120例神经内科患者同时进行血压测量.结果:两种血压计测得的平均收缩压和舒张压比较差异无统计学意义.结论:电子血压计与汞柱式血压计测量出的血压值具有较好的一致性、可靠性,且前者不受人为因素影响,省时、省力,可以在神经内科病房中推广应用.     

不同方法测量血压的对照研究

[目的]研究汞柱式血压计、电子血压计与多功能重症监护仪测得的血压数值是否存在显著性差异。[方法]用3种血压计测量40例住院病人的血压,将获取的3组数据作比较,分析差异有无显著性。[结果]汞柱式血压计与电子血压计测得的血压差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。[结论]血压计的选择对测得血压值有影响。     

保鲜袋作为一次性血压计袖带套在血压监测中的应用

目的探讨采用保鲜袋作为血压计袖带套监测血压对血压测量值的影响。方法选取100例患者分别2d采用保鲜袋作为血压计袖带套测量血压并同时使用传统血压计袖带测量血压,采用自身对照法测量血压共400次,比较两种方法测得血压值结果。结果第1种方法先采用保鲜袋作为血压计袖带套测量100例患者血压收缩压、舒张压值分别为（120．92±19．35）,（72．12±15．10）mmHg与后使用传统血压计袖带测量血压收缩压、舒张压值（121．50±18．00）,（70．37±14．00）mmHg比较,差异均无统计学意义（t分别为0．73,0．32;P〉0．05）;第2种方法先用传统方法测量血压100例患者血压收缩压、舒张压值分别为（122．044-15．21）,（74．52±9．96）mmHg与后使用保鲜袋作为血压计袖带套垫测量血压收缩压、舒张压值（122．06±15．26）,（73．86±10．37）mmHg比较,差异均无统计学意义（t分别为0．03,0．06;P〉0．05）。结论采用保鲜袋作为一次性血压计袖带套监测血压,操作简便,符合感染管理要求,不影响血压数值的准确性。     

三种常用血压计在精神科病房血压监测中的结果比较

目的探讨在精神科病房使用电子血压计代替汞柱血压计测量血压的可行性。方法选择精神科病房70例患者,在同一时间、同一部位、同一体位,分别使用台式汞柱式血压计、台式电子血压计、袖带式电子血压计进行血压测量,通过自身对照研究法,对其结果进行比较和分析。结果二种电子血压计与汞柱血压计比较,所测收缩压的数值明显偏高,提示差异有统计学意义(P0.01),而舒张压差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。二种电子血压计比较,无论收缩压还是舒张压,均无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论高血压的诊断标准是依据水银柱式血压计而定的。电子式血压计作为筛查工具省时省力,但在抢救危重患者、诊断高血压、指导高血压患者用药时应谨慎使用,当发现高值或低值血压,有必要用汞柱式血压计再进行重复测量,以防诊断错误。     

臂式电子血压计与汞柱式血压计测量结果对比观察

目的 研究OMRON(欧姆龙)电子血压计测得的血压数值是否比汞柱式血压计测得的血压数值高并具有临床意义.方法 随机抽取120名健康体检人员,分别用两种血压计同时测得血压数值,获取两组数据作比较,计算差异有无显著性.结果 两组数据显示收缩压差异有显著性意义(P<0.01),舒张压差异无显著性意义(P>0.05).结论 在各种条件相同且规范测量血压的前提下,使用电子血压计测得的血压数值要高于使用汞柱式血压计测得的数值,而以收缩压较为明显,并具有统计学意义.     

高血压患者不同体位动态血压的监测

目的了解高血压患者仰卧位、侧卧位、坐位、站立位动态血压测量有否不同。方法对51例动态血压监测的高血压患者,选用右上肢肱动脉测压法,分别测量不同体位的血压。结果仰卧位、左侧卧位、右侧卧位、坐位、站立位时的收缩压平均分别是152.10±14.55、129.21±14.92、150.42±15.54、149.87±14.84、147.85±12.67 mm Hg;舒张压平均分别是87.81±6.92、70.83±8.32、88.33±11.52、88.81±9.15、87.25±11.15 mm Hg。与仰卧位时动态血压测量的结果比较,左侧卧位时收缩压平均低22.89 mm Hg,舒张压平均低16.98 mm Hg,P<0.01;右侧卧位时收缩压平均低1.68 mm Hg,舒张压平均高0.52 mm Hg,P>0.05;坐位时收缩压平均低2.23 mm Hg,舒张压平均高1.00 mm Hg,P>0.05;站立位时收缩压平均低4.25 mm Hg,舒张压平均低0.56 mm Hg,P>0.05。结论高血压患者右侧卧位、坐位、站立位时与仰卧位时动态血压测量的结果无明显变化,左侧卧位时动态血压测量的结果显著低于仰卧位时动态血压测量的结果。     

腕式电子和水银血压计监测脑梗死病人血压的比较

[目的]比较腕式电子血压计和水银血压计监测脑梗死病人血压方面是否存在差异,指导临床上监测脑梗死病人血压计的选择和使用。[方法]85例脑梗死病人,每例受试者用腕式血压计和水银血压计各进行1次平卧位血压测量并分组比较。[结果]腕式电子血压计和水银血压计监测收缩压、舒张压的差异均有统计学意义;脑栓塞和动脉硬化病人采用腕式电子血压计和水银血压计监测收缩压时存在差异,脑栓塞和脑血栓形成、有无动脉硬化病人采用腕式电子血压计和水银血压计监测舒张压时存在差异。[结论]腕式电子血压计不可用于脑梗死病人血压的监测。     

Changes in blood pressure in the sitting and standing positions in hypertensive patients

Ersoy S, Pinar R, Ersoy IH. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2011; 17 : 105–109 Changes in blood pressure in the sitting and standing positions in hypertensive patients Most guidelines for management of hypertension do not give special preference to a specific position of patient during blood pressure (BP) measurement, suggesting that BP readings taken with patients sitting, supine and standing are equivalent. The objective of this study was to examine whether there was any difference between BP readings with hypertensive participants comfortably sitting on chair and those with participants standing with the arm supported horizontally at the right atrial level. BP was measured twice each for 168 hypertensive patients (medicated and unmedicated) at sitting, standing and sitting positions, respectively, with a mercury‐filled column sphygmomanometer. We found significantly lower in systolic and diastolic BP readings in standing position than in sitting position. The present study indicates that the BP readings are related to the posture; thus, BP measured in different positions cannot automatically be regarded as equivalent.     

Blood pressure monitoring with home monitors versus mercury sphygmomanometer

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of three automatic monitors (arm, wrist, finger) for blood pressure measurement manufactured by Omron compared with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. PRIMRY END POINT: Difference in the mean blood pressure readings from each monitor; the secondary end point was difference in pulse readings. DESIGN: A single-visit, crossover trial tested each device twice on the left arm of each participant; the average of the two readings was recorded. The pulse readings from each monitor were also recorded. ANOVA was used to compare mean blood pressure readings and pulse readings from each device. RESULTS: A total of 55 persons (mean age 53 y; 36 women) met inclusion criteria and completed the study. The mean systolic and diastolic readings obtained from the electronic arm unit were comparable to the mercury readings (124.4/78.02 vs. 129.45/77.87 mm Hg, respectively; p > 0.05 for both readings). The mean results obtained from the wrist and finger monitors differed significantly from those of the mercury readings (145.44/89.58 and 113.94/69.07 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.05 for both monitors compared with control). No difference was measured in the mean pulse readings between the comparisons (p = 0.72). The absolute difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings from control varied the least wih the arm monitor. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer, the arm monitor was the most accurate in measuring blood pressure. The wrist and finger monitors resulted in statistically significant mean systolic and diastolic differences compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer.     

Assessment of blood pressure discrepancies in third-trimester hypertensive gravidas

Previous studies have associated hypertension with discrepancies between right arm and left arm blood pressure (BP) measurements. The purpose of this study was to determine if there were clinically (defined as > or = 10 mm Hg disparity) and statistically significant differences between right arm and left arm BP measurements (systolic, diastolic, or mean) in 34 third-trimester hypertensive gravidas. Thirty-four third-trimester normotensive gravidas were used as controls. No subjects were in active labor. This study used a cross-sectional, 2-group design with convenience sampling. The protocol for BP measurement followed guidelines of the American Heart Association and the instrument manufacturer. The results showed a greater range in BP differences between arms for the hypertensive group in the systolic (0.67-26.67 mm Hg) and mean (0.25-67 mm Hg) pressures compared with the normotensive group (systolic, 0-14.33 mm Hg; mean, 0-12 mm Hg). The mean difference in BP between arms was greater for the hypertensive group compared with the normotensive group. Using a 1-tailed t test, the mean difference was statistically significant (P < or = .05) for the systolic pressure (P = .027) and for the mean pressure (P = .022), but not the diastolic pressure (P = .168). The frequency of clinically significant differences (> or = 10 mm Hg) was greater for the hypertensive group than for the normotensive group (13 vs 4). These differences in frequencies were not statistically significant with chi-square analysis (systolic, P = .074; diastolic, P = .303; mean, P = .303). These findings indicated BP discrepancies between arms exist in both normotensive and hypertensive gravidas, with a greater range and frequency of differences in the hypertensive group. This study supports the American Heart Association's recommendation of bilateral BP assessment.     

高血压合并慢性肾脏病患者的动态血压分析

目的 探讨原发性高血压合并慢性肾功能不全后动态血压的变化特点.方法 对28例单纯原发性高血压患者(A组)和25例合并慢性肾脏功能不全的高血压患者(B组)进行动态血压监测.结果 ①血压比较:24 h舒张压B组高于A组[(80.9±13.4)mm Hg比(70.3±15.6)mm Hg,P＜0.05)];B组夜间的收缩压与舒张压均高于A组[(160.2±17.8)mm Hg比(140.3±25.9)mm Hg和(82.6±16.1)姗Hg比(68.8±20.2)mm Hg,P＜0.01].②血压变异性比较:B组24 h收缩压变异性和舒张压变异性均高于A组[(13.5±3.9)mm Hg比(11.3±2.1)mm Hg和(9.2±1.2)mm Hg比(8.3±1.8)mm Hg,P＜0.05],B组夜间的收缩压与舒张压变异性均高于A组[(14.9±3.3)mm Hg比(9.3±2.1)mm Hg和(9.7±2.4)mm Hg比(8.0±2.2)mm Hg,P＜0.01)].③血压趋势比较:A组血压趋势以非勺型为多,占64.3%(18/28),反勺型占10.7%(3/28);而B组反勺型占48.0%(12/25),非勺型占40.0%(10/25).结论 肾性因素参与的高血压患者血压趋势紊乱,夜间血压及变异性明显增加,均可成为肾功能继续恶化和心脑血管事件发生的重要因素.     

Lack of comparability of two automated blood pressure monitors in a hypertensive population

Two frequently used automated, blood pressure monitors, the Arteriosonde and the Dinamap, were compared with each other and with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Fifteen patients with elevated blood pressure were studied: 5 were untreated, 5 received a diuretic alone, and 5 received a beta blocker alone. One hundred and twenty blood pressure measurements were taken from each subject with two different instruments (one on each arm) in a 2 (supine or standing position) X 2 (left or right arm) X 3 (three different sets of pairwise instrument comparisons) X 5 (five one-minute interval measurements per phase) factorial design. A reasonable inter-instrument comparability for systolic blood pressure was found with mean deviations of +1.3 mmHg and -3.8 mmHg from the mercury sphygmomanometer for the Dinamap and Arteriosonde, respectively. Differences between instruments for diastolic pressure however, were significantly larger. The Arteriosonde systematically obtained higher diastolic pressure values (+7.4 mmHg) than the mercury sphygmomanometer or the Dinamap (10.7 mmHg). Diastolic pressure on the Dinamap was on average 5.2 mmHg lower than on the mercury sphygmomanometer. Left/right arm differences and differences for the treatment conditions were not observed. Findings clearly suggest that these two automated blood pressure monitors cannot be used interchangeably with each other or with the mercury sphygmomanometer in either a research or clinical setting. Overall the Dinamap approached mercury sphygmomanometer measures more closely than did the Arteriosonde.     

超声心动图评价急性肺栓塞患者溶栓前后右心功能指标

目的 采用超声心动图测量急性肺栓塞患者溶栓前后右心功能指标以评价溶栓效果.方法 80例急性肺栓塞患者均接受溶栓治疗.溶栓前和溶栓后24 h采用超声心动图检查患者右心室前壁厚度(RVAWT)、右心室舒张末期前后径(RVED)、主肺动脉内径(PAD)、右心室舒张期横径(RVDD)、右心房舒张期横径(RADD)、三尖瓣反流压差(TRPG)及肺动脉收缩压(SPAP).结果 80例急性肺栓塞患者溶栓后RVAWT、RVED、PAD、RVDD、TRPG、SPAP分别为(4.23±1.02)mm、(26.20±3.01) mm、(26.67±2.36)mm、(36.23±4.36)mm、(31.68±2.33)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)、(37.52±3.20)mm Hg,较溶栓前的(7.56±1.22)mm、(31.78±3.26)mm、(29.44±2.20)mm、(40.20±5.01)mm、(48.98±3.80) mm Hg、(57.25±4.23)mm Hg均降低,且差异均有统计学意义(t值分别为3.01、2.78、2.35、2.75、2.98、3.55,P均<0.01或0.05);溶栓后患者RADD为(37.55±5.25)mm,与溶栓前的(38.25±4.25)mm比较差异无统计学意义(t=1.32,P=0.18).结论 超声心动图对急性肺栓塞患者溶栓前后右心功能评价有重要意义.溶栓治疗可改善急性肺栓塞患者右心功能.     

腕式电子和水银血压计监测脑梗死病人血压的比较

[目的]比较腕式电子血压计和水银血压计监测脑梗死病人血压方面是否存在差异,指导临床上监测脑梗死病人血压计的选择和使用。[方法]85例脑梗死病人,每例受试者用腕式血压计和水银血压计各进行1次平卧位血压测量并分组比较。[结果]腕式电子血压计和水银血压计监测收缩压、舒张压的差异均有统计学意义;脑栓塞和动脉硬化病人采用腕式电子血压计和水银血压计监测收缩压时存在差异,脑栓塞和脑血栓形成、有无动脉硬化病人采用腕式电子血压计和水银血压计监测舒张压时存在差异。[结论]腕式电子血压计不可用于脑梗死病人血压的监测。