不同体位动态血压监测的对比研究

目的了解不同体位对动态血压测量值的影响。方法对120例动态血压监测的患者,选用右上肢肱动脉测压法,分别测量仰卧位、左侧卧位、右侧卧位、坐位、站立位时的血压,比较不同体位动态血压测量值的差异。结果与仰卧位时动态血压测量结果比较,左侧卧位时收缩压平均低17．07mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）,舒张压平均低13．34mmHg,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）;右侧卧位时收缩压平均低1．22mmHg,舒张压平均低0．24mmHg,差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论选用右上肢肱动脉动态血压监测时,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低于仰卧位时动态血压测量的结果。     

健康青少年女性不同体位右肱动脉血压的研究

目的：研究健康青少年女性不同体位时右肱动脉血压的差异。方法规范测量200名健康青少年女性坐位、平卧位、站立位、左侧卧位、右侧卧位时的血压并进行比较。结果收缩压由高到低依次是坐位、左侧卧位、平卧位、右侧卧位、站立位;舒张压由高到低依次是坐位、左侧卧位、右侧卧位、平卧位、站立位。坐位右肱动脉收缩压、舒张压高于平卧位,差异有统计学意义（P ＜0．05）;左侧卧位右肱动脉收缩压、舒张压高于平卧位,差异有统计学意义（P ＜0．05）;站立位右肱动脉收缩压、舒张压低于平卧位,差异有统计学意义（P ＜0．05）。结论不同的体位可以影响右肱动脉的血压,临床记录血压测量值时要标明体位和肢体。     

监护仪测血压不同卧位与上肢压迫时间的对比研究

目的 探讨用监护仪测右上肢肱动脉血压,不同卧位与上肢压迫时间所得血压的对比研究.方法 对90例患者,选用右上肢肱动脉测压法,分别用监护仪测量仰卧位、右侧卧位30 min、右侧卧位60 min,左侧卧位30 min、左侧卧位60min时的血压.结果 仰卧位时收缩压平均(123.34±19.56)mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa),右侧卧位30min、右侧卧位60 min时收缩压平均(124.34±l8.43)mmHg,(124.40±18.30)mmHg,与仰卧位时比较(P＞0.05),差别无统计学意义;仰卧位时舒张压平均(76.16±10.34)mmHg,右侧卧位30 min、60 min时舒张压平均(74.52±9.62)mmHg、(75.55±9.60)mmHg,与仰卧位时比较(P＞0.05),差别无统计学意义;仰卧位时收缩压平均(125.34±19.60)mmHg,左侧卧位30 min、左侧卧位60 min时收缩压平均(113.01±21.13)mmHg、(113.03±21.14)mmHg,与仰卧位时比较(P＜0.05),差别有统计学意义.左侧卧位30 min、左侧卧位60 min舒张压平均(60.56±11.08)mmHg、(60.54±11.05)mmHg,与仰卧位时比较(P＜0.05),差别有统计学意义.结论 选用右上肢肱动脉用监护仪测压时,右侧卧位30 min、右侧卧位60 min与仰卧位无创血压测量无明显变化,左侧卧位时无创血压测量的结果显著低于仰卧位时无创血压测量的结果,收缩压平均低14.47 mmHg,舒张压平均低14.17 mmHg.     

不同体位对老年高血压伴餐后低血压患者血压的影响

目的：探讨餐后不同体位对老年高血压伴餐后低血压患者血压的影响。方法将32例老年高血压伴餐后低血压患者于进食早餐后随机分配为坐位、平卧位及左侧卧位3种体位,采用动态血压计监测餐后2h内血压的变化。结果进餐后无论保持卧位、坐位还是左侧卧位的患者,在进食早餐后45 min出现明显的血压下降,60 min-75 min收缩压与舒张压降至最低点,90 min时逐渐开始回升,120 min时与餐前基本相同（P＞0．05）。不同时点不同体位的收缩压与舒张压监测结果比较差异均无显著性（P＞0．05）。结论餐后不同体位对老年高血压伴餐后低血压患者的血压无明显影响。     

体位对急性心肌梗死病人无创血压监测值的影响

目的探讨体位因素对急性心肌梗死(AMI)病人无创血压监测值的影响。方法将60例AMI病人不同体位的血压监测值进行自身对照比较,对数据进行统计学处理。结果左臂测压:右侧卧位时,收缩压与平卧位相比平均低1.97 kPa,舒张压与平卧位相比平均低1.55 kPa,(P<0.001),差别有显著意义;左侧卧位时,收缩压与平卧位相比平均高0.385 kPa,舒张压与平卧位相比平均低0.0147 kPa,差别无显著意义(P>0.05)。右臂测压:左侧卧位时,收缩压与平卧位相比平均降低1.74 kPa,舒张压与平卧位相比平均降低1.95 kPa,差别有显著意义,(P<0.001);右侧卧位时,收缩压与平卧位相比平均高0.489 kPa,舒张压与平卧位相比平均高0.496 kPa,差别无显著意义,(P>0.05)。结论侧卧位测压时,当测压手臂位于心脏同一水平线上方时所测得的血压值显著低于平卧位所测得的血压值,当测压手臂位于心脏同一水平线下方时所测得的血压值与平卧位相比差别无显著意义。     

高血压患者的社区干预效果评价

目的 评价社区干预对高血压的控制效果.方法 选择原发性高血压患者512例,随机分成对照组与观察组.对照组为一般药物治疗;观察组在药物治疗基础上接受社区干预.采取问卷调查形式对观察组患者高血压知识知晓率及健康行为的建立率进行测评;观察2组患者6个月内心脑血管事件的发生率及治疗6个月末动态血压检测(ABPM)情况.结果 观察组在接受社区干预后与干预前相比对高血压病相关知识知晓率明显提高且整体健康行为建立率也明显提高,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);观察组6个月内心脑血管事件发生率明显低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);ABPM显示6个月末观察组治疗后与对照组治疗后相比24 h平均收缩压明显下降[(124.56±11.32)mm Hg与(138.65±10.63)mmHg,t=14.347,P<0.01]、舒张压明显下降[(82.75±12.34)mm Hg与(92.67±11.68)mm Hg,t=9.237,P<0.01],24 h血压负荷均明显下降,其中收缩压[(10.67±3.64)mm Hg与(14.86±4.16)mm Hg,t=11.985,P<0.01],舒张压[(9.65±4.26)mm Hg与(16.45±3.89)mm Hg,t=18.638,P<0.01],谷峰比值均明显升高,其中收缩压[(80.85±8.46)mm Hg与(76.17±9.38)mm Hg,t=5.805,P<0.01],舒张压[(76.85±9.29)mm Hg与(69.75±8.47)mm Hg,t=8.93,P<0.01],差异均有统计学意义.结论 社区干预治疗能有效提高高血压的控制率,且减少并发症的发生.     

高血压患者的社区干预效果评价

目的 评价社区干预对高血压的控制效果.方法 选择原发性高血压患者512例,随机分成对照组与观察组.对照组为一般药物治疗;观察组在药物治疗基础上接受社区干预.采取问卷调查形式对观察组患者高血压知识知晓率及健康行为的建立率进行测评;观察2组患者6个月内心脑血管事件的发生率及治疗6个月末动态血压检测(ABPM)情况.结果 观察组在接受社区干预后与干预前相比对高血压病相关知识知晓率明显提高且整体健康行为建立率也明显提高,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);观察组6个月内心脑血管事件发生率明显低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);ABPM显示6个月末观察组治疗后与对照组治疗后相比24 h平均收缩压明显下降[(124.56±11.32)mm Hg与(138.65±10.63)mmHg,t=14.347,P<0.01]、舒张压明显下降[(82.75±12.34)mm Hg与(92.67±11.68)mm Hg,t=9.237,P<0.01],24 h血压负荷均明显下降,其中收缩压[(10.67±3.64)mm Hg与(14.86±4.16)mm Hg,t=11.985,P<0.01],舒张压[(9.65±4.26)mm Hg与(16.45±3.89)mm Hg,t=18.638,P<0.01],谷峰比值均明显升高,其中收缩压[(80.85±8.46)mm Hg与(76.17±9.38)mm Hg,t=5.805,P<0.01],舒张压[(76.85±9.29)mm Hg与(69.75±8.47)mm Hg,t=8.93,P<0.01],差异均有统计学意义.结论 社区干预治疗能有效提高高血压的控制率,且减少并发症的发生.     

高血压患者的社区干预效果评价

目的 评价社区干预对高血压的控制效果.方法 选择原发性高血压患者512例,随机分成对照组与观察组.对照组为一般药物治疗;观察组在药物治疗基础上接受社区干预.采取问卷调查形式对观察组患者高血压知识知晓率及健康行为的建立率进行测评;观察2组患者6个月内心脑血管事件的发生率及治疗6个月末动态血压检测(ABPM)情况.结果 观察组在接受社区干预后与干预前相比对高血压病相关知识知晓率明显提高且整体健康行为建立率也明显提高,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);观察组6个月内心脑血管事件发生率明显低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);ABPM显示6个月末观察组治疗后与对照组治疗后相比24 h平均收缩压明显下降[(124.56±11.32)mm Hg与(138.65±10.63)mmHg,t=14.347,P<0.01]、舒张压明显下降[(82.75±12.34)mm Hg与(92.67±11.68)mm Hg,t=9.237,P<0.01],24 h血压负荷均明显下降,其中收缩压[(10.67±3.64)mm Hg与(14.86±4.16)mm Hg,t=11.985,P<0.01],舒张压[(9.65±4.26)mm Hg与(16.45±3.89)mm Hg,t=18.638,P<0.01],谷峰比值均明显升高,其中收缩压[(80.85±8.46)mm Hg与(76.17±9.38)mm Hg,t=5.805,P<0.01],舒张压[(76.85±9.29)mm Hg与(69.75±8.47)mm Hg,t=8.93,P<0.01],差异均有统计学意义.结论 社区干预治疗能有效提高高血压的控制率,且减少并发症的发生.     

高血压患者的社区干预效果评价

目的 评价社区干预对高血压的控制效果.方法 选择原发性高血压患者512例,随机分成对照组与观察组.对照组为一般药物治疗;观察组在药物治疗基础上接受社区干预.采取问卷调查形式对观察组患者高血压知识知晓率及健康行为的建立率进行测评;观察2组患者6个月内心脑血管事件的发生率及治疗6个月末动态血压检测(ABPM)情况.结果 观察组在接受社区干预后与干预前相比对高血压病相关知识知晓率明显提高且整体健康行为建立率也明显提高,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);观察组6个月内心脑血管事件发生率明显低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);ABPM显示6个月末观察组治疗后与对照组治疗后相比24 h平均收缩压明显下降[(124.56±11.32)mm Hg与(138.65±10.63)mmHg,t=14.347,P<0.01]、舒张压明显下降[(82.75±12.34)mm Hg与(92.67±11.68)mm Hg,t=9.237,P<0.01],24 h血压负荷均明显下降,其中收缩压[(10.67±3.64)mm Hg与(14.86±4.16)mm Hg,t=11.985,P<0.01],舒张压[(9.65±4.26)mm Hg与(16.45±3.89)mm Hg,t=18.638,P<0.01],谷峰比值均明显升高,其中收缩压[(80.85±8.46)mm Hg与(76.17±9.38)mm Hg,t=5.805,P<0.01],舒张压[(76.85±9.29)mm Hg与(69.75±8.47)mm Hg,t=8.93,P<0.01],差异均有统计学意义.结论 社区干预治疗能有效提高高血压的控制率,且减少并发症的发生.     

高血压患者的社区干预效果评价

目的 评价社区干预对高血压的控制效果.方法 选择原发性高血压患者512例,随机分成对照组与观察组.对照组为一般药物治疗;观察组在药物治疗基础上接受社区干预.采取问卷调查形式对观察组患者高血压知识知晓率及健康行为的建立率进行测评;观察2组患者6个月内心脑血管事件的发生率及治疗6个月末动态血压检测(ABPM)情况.结果 观察组在接受社区干预后与干预前相比对高血压病相关知识知晓率明显提高且整体健康行为建立率也明显提高,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);观察组6个月内心脑血管事件发生率明显低于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);ABPM显示6个月末观察组治疗后与对照组治疗后相比24 h平均收缩压明显下降[(124.56±11.32)mm Hg与(138.65±10.63)mmHg,t=14.347,P<0.01]、舒张压明显下降[(82.75±12.34)mm Hg与(92.67±11.68)mm Hg,t=9.237,P<0.01],24 h血压负荷均明显下降,其中收缩压[(10.67±3.64)mm Hg与(14.86±4.16)mm Hg,t=11.985,P<0.01],舒张压[(9.65±4.26)mm Hg与(16.45±3.89)mm Hg,t=18.638,P<0.01],谷峰比值均明显升高,其中收缩压[(80.85±8.46)mm Hg与(76.17±9.38)mm Hg,t=5.805,P<0.01],舒张压[(76.85±9.29)mm Hg与(69.75±8.47)mm Hg,t=8.93,P<0.01],差异均有统计学意义.结论 社区干预治疗能有效提高高血压的控制率,且减少并发症的发生.     

两种体位对不同血压计血压测量值的影响

目的探讨坐位与卧位对电子血压计和汞柱血压计测量值差异的影响,以便在临床工作中正确使用电子血压计及指导患者正确地使用电子血压计进行自测血压。方法对142例查体患者在坐位和卧位时由2名护士分别使用电子血压计和汞柱血压计测量左、右臂的收缩压和舒张压,比较两种血压计血压测量值的差异。结果坐位时电子血压计和汞柱血压计所测得的左臂收缩压、左臂舒张压、右臂收缩压、右臂舒张压差异无统计学意义（t=-0．315,1．560,-1．472,1．156,P〉0．05）。卧位时电子血压计和汞柱血压计所测得的左臂收缩压差异无统计学意义（t=-0．370,P〉0．05）,但卧位时左臂舒张压、右臂收缩压、右臂舒张压差异有统计学意义（t=5．172,-5．402,2．979,P〈0．05）。结论坐位测量血压时,电子血压计可以替代汞柱血压计。     

Blood pressure load--a better determinant of hypertension

Noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to evaluate the diagnosis of hypertension in 168 untreated patients with essential hypertension. On the basis of overall office blood pressure--the mean of 12 measurements, 2 in each of three positions (supine, sitting, and standing) on 2 consecutive days--133 patients were diagnosed as having hypertension (diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher) and 35 as having borderline hypertension (diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg). The mean blood pressures for those with hypertension and borderline hypertension were 149/99 and 135/87 mm Hg, respectively. The mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure was 90 mm Hg or higher in 123 patients during awake hours and in 91 patients during 24 hours. The diastolic blood pressure loads (percentage of ambulatory diastolic blood pressures more than 90 mm Hg) in patients with hypertension and borderline hypertension, respectively, were 69% and 43% during awake hours and 59% and 35% during 24 hours. The systolic blood pressure loads (percentage of systolic readings more than 140 mm Hg) during awake and 24 hours were 56% and 48%, respectively, in patients with established hypertension and 31% and 26%, respectively, in those with borderline hypertension. Thus, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and blood pressure load provide useful information for diagnosing hypertension.     

Postural effects on diastolic blood pressure are differently recorded by a non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure monitor and a standard auscultatory device,

Summary. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of change of posture on blood pressure as recorded with an automatic ambulatory blood pressure monitor and a standard auscultatory device. The blood pressure difference between sitting and supine and between standing and supine posture was 1.1/3.9 and 6.5/6.3 mmHg, respectively, for the monitor recordings, and 0.7/6.7 and 7.9/14.8 mmHg, respectively, for the standard recordings. All differences were significant, except the systolic blood pressure difference between sitting and supine posture. There were no significant differences in systolic blood pressure between monitor and standard recordings in any posture. The corresponding differences in diastolic blood pressure were significant in sitting (-4.6 mmHg) and standing postures (-10.3 mmHg), but not in supine posture (-1.8 mmHg). It is concluded that a change of posture contributes to blood pressure variability, and agreement between diastolic blood pressure in supine subjects, as recorded by an ambulatory monitor and a standard device, does not necessarily mean agreement in standing (or sitting) subjects.     

老老年人24h动态血压特征分析

目的探讨老老年人24h动态血压参数变化的临床意义。方法选择122例老老年人进行24h动态血压监测,分析其24h、白天、夜间平均血压和平均脉压及血压变异性。结果血压节律呈非杓型者112例(91.80%,112/122),杓型者10例(8.20%,10/122)。24h平均收缩压(126.37±14.78)mmHg,平均舒张压(66.35±8.32)mmHg;白天平均收缩压(127.69±14.72)mmHg,平均舒张压(67.75±8.58)mmHg;夜间平均收缩压(123.72±17.96)mmHg,平均舒张压(63.54±9.29)mmHg。24h动态脉压60.02mmHg。夜间血压下降百分率分别为:收缩压3.11%,舒张压6.21%。昼夜血压变化规律在男女间无明显差别。结论老老年人血压昼夜节律呈非杓型改变,血压昼夜节律消失,24h动态脉压远大于正常脉压。     

Variations of ambulatory blood pressure with position in patients with type 1 diabetes: influence of disease duration and microangiopathy in a pilot study

OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of position changes on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in normotensive or mildly hypertensive normoalbuminuric patients with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional evaluation of patients was staged according to the duration of diabetes (DD) and the presence of microangiopathy. We recruited 37 patients (30 men and 7 women), aged 38 +/- 12 years, who were normotensive or mildly hypertensive (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] <105 mmHg) and free of antihypertensive treatment and microalbuminuria. They were included according to DD (group 1, <5 years; group 2, > or =10 years). An additional group of seven diabetic patients with microalbuminuria and mild untreated hypertension was also investigated. We recorded 24-h ambulatory blood pressure every 15 min with a position sensor, which allowed for the discrimination between standing or supine/sitting position in the patient. RESULTS: Mean daytime (10:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.) ABP in supine/sitting position did not significantly differ between groups 1 and 2. However, standing ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) and ambulatory DBP (ADBP) were significantly higher than supine/sitting ASBP and ADBP in group 1 (DeltaSBP 4 +/- 5, DeltaDPB 4 +/- 6 mmHg, P < 0.01) but not in group 2 (DeltaSBP 2 +/- 8, DeltaDBP 2 +/- 4 mmHg, P = NS). Patients free of microangiopathy presented with significantly higher ABP in standing position than in sitting/lying position, whereas patients with retinopathy and/or nephropathy exhibited no significant increase of ABP during standing. CONCLUSION: The monitoring of position during ambulatory measurement of blood pressure in type 1 diabetic patients shows different patterns in relation to disease duration and the presence of microangiopathy.     

The impact of arm position on the measurement of orthostatic blood pressure

Blood pressure is a standard vital sign in patients evaluated in an Emergency Department. The American Heart Association has recommended a preferred position of the arm and cuff when measuring blood pressure. There is no formal recommendation for arm position when measuring orthostatic blood pressure. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of different arm positions on the measurement of postural changes in blood pressure. This was a prospective, unblinded, convenience study involving Emergency Department patients with complaints unrelated to cardiovascular instability. Repeated blood pressure measurements were obtained using an automatic non-invasive device with each subject in a supine and standing position and with the arm parallel and perpendicular to the torso. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a difference of ≥ 20 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 10 mm Hg diastolic when subtracting standing from supine measurements. There were four comparisons made: group W, arm perpendicular supine and standing; group X, arm parallel supine and standing; group Y, arm parallel supine and perpendicular standing; and group Z, arm perpendicular supine and parallel standing. There were 100 patients enrolled, 55 men, mean age 44 years. Four blood pressure measurements were obtained on each patient. The percentage of patients meeting orthostatic hypotension criteria in each group was: W systolic 6% (95% CI 1%, 11%), diastolic 4% (95% CI 0%, 8%), X systolic 8% (95% CI 3%, 13%), diastolic 9% (95% CI 3%, 13%), Y systolic 19% (95% CI 11%, 27%), diastolic 30% (95% CI 21%, 39%), Z systolic 2% (95% CI 0%, 5%), diastolic 2% (95% CI 0%, 5%). Comparison of Group Y vs. X, Z, and W was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Arm position has a significant impact on determination of postural changes in blood pressure. The combination of the arm parallel when supine and perpendicular when standing may significantly overestimate the orthostatic change. Arm position should be held constant in supine and standing positions when assessing for orthostatic change in blood pressure.     

The normal difference in bilateral indirect blood pressure recordings in normotensive individuals

If there is a significant dichotomy between bilateral blood pressure determinations in both arms, it is often taken as a sign of some type of underlying pathology. We wished to evaluate what the normal variation might be for significant differences between blood pressures in both arms. Significant difference was arbitrarily chosen as a systolic blood pressure value greater than 10 mm Hg. Bilateral indirect blood pressure determinations were obtained in 100 subjects with no known history of hypertension in the sitting position. The blood pressure was obtained by 2 observers, one who recorded the systolic and diastolic blood pressure as announced by the person taking the blood pressures who was blinded to the actual values taken. The coefficient of variation in obtaining the blood pressures in each arm was determined in 5 of the 100 subjects. The age, sex, and handedness of each individual were recorded as demographic variables. The average left and right systolic blood pressures were 112.1 +/- 16.5 and 112.7 +/- 16.3 mm Hg, respectively. The average left and right diastolic pressures were 64.4 +/- 11.6 and 63.5 +/- 9.9 mm Hg, respectively. There was no significant difference between left minus right systolic or diastolic differences (Student's paired t-test). There were no significant differences in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between gender or between right and left handed individuals (non-paired t-test). The average coefficients of variation for right and left arm systolic blood pressures were 5.41% and 5.81%, respectively. Fifteen subjects had differences in systolic blood pressure between both arms exceeding 10 mm Hg (7% to 22%, 95% confidence interval). Differences of more than 10 mm Hg in indirect bilateral blood pressure recordings are frequent in normotensive individuals and probably do not per se indicate any abnormal pathology. In the right clinical situation, differences that are noted should probably be repeated and should be added to the total clinical picture when used to determine whether a pathologic condition is present.     

Effect of the 30 degree lateral recumbent position on pulmonary artery and pulmonary artery wedge pressures in critically ill adult cardiac surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite demonstrated benefits of lateral positioning, critically ill patients may require prolonged supine positioning to obtain reproducible hemodynamic measurements. OBJECTIVES: TO determine the effect of 30 degree right and left lateral positions on pulmonary artery and pulmonary artery wedge pressures after cardiac surgery in critically ill adult patients. METHODS: An experimental repeated-measures design was used to study 35 patients with stable hemodynamics after cardiac surgery. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 position sequences. Pulmonary artery and pulmonary artery wedge pressures were measured in each position. RESULTS: Measurements obtained from patients in the 30 degree left lateral position differed significantly (all Ps < .05) from measurements obtained from patients in the supine position for pulmonary artery systolic, end-diastolic, and mean pressures. Pulmonary artery wedge pressures did not differ significantly; however, data were available from only 17 subjects. The largest mean difference in pressures between the 2 positions was 2.0 +/- 2.1 mm Hg for pulmonary artery systolic pressures, whereas maximum differences for end-diastolic and pulmonary artery wedge pressures were 1.4 +/- 2.7 mm Hg and 1.6 +/- 2.4 mm Hg, respectively. Clinically significant position-related changes in pressure occurred in 12 (2.1%) of 581 pressure pairs. Clinically significant changes occurred in end-diastolic pressure in 2 subjects and in pulmonary artery wedge pressure in 1 subject. CONCLUSiONS: In patients with stable hemodynamics during the first 12 to 24 hours after cardiac surgery, measurements of pulmonary artery and pulmonary artery wedge pressures obtained in the 30 degree lateral and supine positions are clinically interchangeable.     

The effect of different body positions on blood pressure

Aim. The aim of the present study was to test the effects of different body on BP readings in a Turkish healthy young adults. Background. It is known that many factors influence an individual's blood pressure measurement. However, guideliness for accurately measuring blood pressure inconsistently specify that patient's position and they should keep feet flat on the floor. Although there are more information on arm position in blood pressure measurement, surprisingly little information can be found in the literature with respect to the influence of body position on the blood pressure readings in healthy young people. Methods. A total of 157 healthy young students who had accepted to participate in the study were randomly selected. In all subjects the blood pressure was measured subsequently in four positions: Sitting blood pressure was taken from the left arm, which was flexed at the elbow and supported at the heart level on the chair. After at least one minute of standing, the blood pressure was then taken standing, with the arm supported at the elbow and the cuff at the heart level. After one minute of rest, the blood pressure was subsequently taken supine position. Finally, after one minute the blood pressure was again taken in this last position with supine position with crossed legs. Results. The blood pressure tended to drop in the standing position compared with the sitting, supine and supine with crossed legs. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure was the highest in supine position when compared the other positions. There was a difference between systolic blood pressures and this was statistically significant (P < 0·001) but the difference between diastolic blood pressure was not statistically significant (P > 0·05). All changes in systolic blood pressure were statistically significant except those from supine to supine position with crossed legs. Relevance to clinical practice. When assessing blood pressure it is important to take the position of the patient into consideration. Also, blood pressure measurement must be taken in sitting position with the arms supported at the right a trial level.