HEM-6000手腕式血压计的可靠性

目的采用美国医疗器械检测协会(AAMI)标准,对HEM-6000手腕式血压计的血压测量精确度进行临床验证研究。方法入选对象为18岁以上成年人,共91人。腕部测压结果与听诊法比较。每位受试者用2种方法同时各进行3次坐位血压测量,对91人的273对血压测量值用以下2种方法进行统计分析:(1)先计算出2种测压方法得到的血压测量值误差,再求得误差的平均值和标准偏差。(2)先计算出每位受试者用2种测压方法得到的血压平均值的差值,再求得该差值的平均值和标准偏差。结果根据方法1得到的收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)的测量误差分别为(0.5±7.1)mm Hg和(-1.6±6.1)mm Hg;根据方法2得到的结果分别(0.5±6.1)mm Hg和(-1.6±5.3)mm Hg。血压值的水平及手腕周长对测量误差无影响。结论HEM-6000手腕式血压计通过AAMI检验标准,可推荐患者用于家庭自我测压。     

欧姆龙HEM-711型便携式电子血压计的准确性

评价欧姆龙ＨＥＭ－７１１型便携式电子血压计的准确性。方法根据英国高血压协会（ＢＨＳ）以及医学仪器进展协会（ＡＡＭＩ）的规定,对１２６例进行了听诊法及电子血压测定的对比研究。结果欧姆龙ＨＥＭ－７１１型便携式血压计收缩压和舒张压均达到了ＢＨＳ的Ａ级标准,并通过了ＡＡＭＩ的规定要求。两种方法间呈线形相关,其回归方程为收缩压ＳＢＰ：＾ｙ＝１．０９＋０．９６０ｘ（ｒ＝０．９７６）;ＤＢＰ：＾ｙ＝５．３＋０．９７０ｘ（ｒ＝０．９１６）。结论欧姆龙ＨＥＭ－７１１型便携式血压计具有良好的准确性,可用于家庭及医院内的血压监测。     

欧姆龙HEM—711型例携式电子血压计的准确性

目的 评价欧姆龙ＨＥＭ－７１１型便携式电子血压计的准确性。方法 根据英国高血压协会（ＢＨＳ）以及医学仪器进展协会（ＡＡＭＩ）的规定，对１２６例进行了听诊法及电子血压测定的对比研究。结果 欧姆龙ＨＥＭ－７１１型便携式血压计收缩压和舒张压均达到了ＢＨＳ的Ａ级标准，并通过了ＡＡＭＩ的规定要求。两种方法间呈线形相关，其加归方程为收缩压ＳＢＰ：ｙ＝１．０９＋０．９６０ｘ（ｒ＝０．９７６）；ＤＢＰ：ｙ＝５．３     

汞柱式血压计零刻度水平对血压测量值的影响

目的探讨汞柱式血压计零刻度水平与心脏的高度差对血压测量值的影响。方法随机抽取健康学生176名,将汞柱式血压计零刻度水平放在心脏水平的20cm、0cm、负20cm高度,按标准方法分别测量血压,分类登记,进行统计学分析。结果汞柱式血压计零刻度水平三种高度间收缩压和舒张压的比较P均>0.05,无统计学意义。结论汞柱式血压计零刻度水平并没有影响血压测量值。临床实践中我们可以将汞柱式血压计摆放于平整、水银柱垂直、易于读数的位置,而无需刻意使汞柱式血压计零刻度与心脏保持同一水平。     

LR-850型和OMRON HEM-732C型电子血压计的准确性评价

目的评价LR-850多功能全自动电子血压计和OMRONHEM-732C型电子血压计的准确性。方法根据英国高血压协会（BHS）及医学仪器进展协会（AAMI）的规定,对两种电子血压计进行了听诊法及电子血压计同步测定的对比研究。结果LR-850多功能全自动电子血压计所测收缩压值达到BHS的A级标准,而OMRONHEM-732C电子血压计所测收缩压值达到BHS的C级标准,两种血压计舒张压值均达到BHS的A级标准,且都通过了AAMI的规定要求。结论LR-850型多功能全自动电子血压计和OMRONHEM-732C电子血压计均具有良好的准确性,可用于家庭及医院内的血压监测。     

宽袖带与常规宽度袖带臂式电子血压计测量血压结果的对比分析

目的 探索宽袖带(宽度为18 cm)与常规宽度袖带(宽度为13 cm)臂式电子血压计在测量血压值的差异.方法 选择2018年5-11月于河北医科大学第二医院心内科住院患者1 155例,其中男性占47％,年龄(59.7±13.2)岁.根据臂围大小将患者分为4组:第1组臂围范围为15～21 cm,第2组为22～26 cm,...     

电子血压计与汞柱血压计测量结果对比观察

<正>血压测量是临床工作中一项重要的操作,可以协助诊断疾病以及评价用药效果。近年来,电子血压计广泛应用于临床,其性能不断提升。本院在临床上发现袖带式电子血压计对年龄较大或是臂围较细的患者进行血压测量时,其测量结果较汞柱血压计的测量值有不同程度的差异。本文通过对比两种血压计的测量结果以观察电子血压计在血压测量中的准确性。1资料与方法1.1一般资料:选取2014年3月至5月我院住院患     

电子血压计与水银血压计重复测量血压的研究

目的比较电子血压计与水银血压计重复测量的稳定性,评价吴博士RG-BPⅡ5800型脉搏波电子血压计准确性。方法使用标准台式水银血压计与吴博士RG-BPⅡ5800型电子血压计对270名受试者同臂同步重复连续测量血压5次,比较两种血压计测量的数值的差异以及合适测量次数。结果以水银血压计测量值为参照,电子血压计偏差为0.8 mm Hg/0.2 mm Hg(收缩压/舒张压),电子血压计测量值偏差的标准差为4.5 mm Hg/6.2 mm Hg(收缩压/舒张压)。心力衰竭患者使用电子血压计测量时舒张压值低于水银血压计1.0 mm Hg(P=0.036)。在测量收缩压时,电子血压计测得前三次的数值呈递减趋势,从第三次开始数值趋于稳定,水银血压计测得第一次数值高于后四次测量数值,后四次数值变化趋势不稳定,差异有统计学意义(均为P<0.05)。在测量舒张压时,电子血压计第一次数值高于后四次测量数值,水银血压计五次测量值之间差异无统计学意义(均为P<0.05)。结论吴博士RG-BPⅡ5800型脉搏波电子血压计测量血压具有较好的准确性,在临床应用中可代替水银汞柱血压计使用,心力衰竭的患者使用脉搏波电子血压计测量血压时收缩压读数相差1 mm Hg以内,电子血压计重复测量收缩压稳定性较水银血压计好。     

智能听诊柯氏音电子光柱台式血压计的临床价值分析

目的 探讨智能听诊柯氏音电子光柱台式血压计的临床价值.方法 选择2020年3月至4月杭州市临安区第一人民医院心脏中心门诊和住院患者60例.患者坐位,采用标准右侧肱动脉袖带法测量血压.使用智能听诊柯氏音电子光柱台式血压计(智能法)和人工听诊柯氏音水银台式血压计(人工法)分别测量3次,取收缩压和舒张压的平均值进行对比分析....     

对腕式电子血压计的准确性评价

目的评价欧姆龙HEM-6001型电子血压计的准确性并分析影响准确性的因素。方法151名试验对象,年龄范围19~78岁,平均年龄50±16岁。臂围20~40cm,腕围12.5~23cm。静息收缩压(SBP)范围85~192mmHg,舒张压(DBP)范围52~118mmHg,其中男性81名,女性70名。按水银柱式血压计、欧姆龙HEM-7000、水银柱式血压计、欧姆龙HEM-6001、水银柱式血压计的顺序测定同一侧上臂的血压。结果欧姆龙HEM-6001、HEM-7000型电子血压计均与水银柱式血压计所测血压值相关性较好,用BHS标准评估分别达到C/B级和B/A级。两者与听诊法测量的血压(SBP/DBP)差值分别为:0.59±8.92/0.43±7.34mmHg(HEM-6001)和-0.79±7.65/1.27±6.05mmHg(HEM-7000)。HEM-6001型的测量差值与臂围大小呈正相关(RSBP=0.315,P<0.01;RDBP=0.245,P<0.01),与腕围大小也呈正相关(RSBP=0.237,P<0.01;RDBP=0.183,P<0.05);HEM-7000型的测量差值与臂围大小不相关(RSBP=-0.066,P>0.05;RDBP=-0.022,P>0.05),与腕围大小也不相关(RSBP=0.098,P>0.05;RDBP=0.033,P>0.05)。结论臂围与腕围特别粗或细的人在使用腕式电子血压计时要注意到臂围和腕围对测量结果的影响。     

血压负荷与诊室血压的关系

目的探讨诊室血压与动态血压负荷关系。方法选取不同血压水平受试者90mmHg组,≥90mmHg组(≥95mmHg(轻、中度高血压))组,比较其诊室血压水平与对应的动态血压负荷值(血压负荷界值定义白天140/90mmHg、夜间120/80mmHg)及其相关性。结果入选53例成年(18岁)正常血压及轻、中度高血压患者,其中男37例,女16例,平均年龄53.7±8.7岁。坐位舒张压(DBP)90mmHg者(组1)31例,≥90mmHg者(组2)22例,其中≥95mmHg者16例。血压负荷:舒张压:组1的血压负荷为17%-29%(组间P0.01)。组2的为75%-84%。组3的为86%-91%。组2与组3比较P0.05。②收缩压:组1的血压负荷为33%-53%(组间P0.01)。组2的为75%-88%。组3的为76%-90%,与≥90mmHg比P0.05。诊室血压与其血压负荷的相关性(CC:相关系数):.舒张压:组1的CC为0.70-0.76,组2的为0.50-0.70。组3的为0.08-0.57。②收缩压:组1的为0.78-0.86,组2的为0.54-0.68,组3的为0.35-0.57。结论血压水平与血压负荷成正相关;轻中度血压与血压负荷相关性对临床更有指导意义。     

Evaluation of Blood Pressure Measuring Devices

Validation of blood pressure measuring devices is a relatively new field of research. There are two national protocols for validating blood pressure measuring devices: the protocol of the American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and the protocol of the British Hypertension Society (BHS), each of which has recently been revised, 19 blood pressure measuring devices have been validated according to one or both of these protocols. These protocols have been beneficial in drawing attention to the potential inaccuracy of blood pressure measuring systems, they permit comparison between devices and they have brought manufacturers of blood pressure measuring devices into closer contact with the profession. There are some inherent weaknesses in both protocols which include the fallibility of the ‘gold standard’, the lack of provision for validation in special circumstances and in special groups, such as the elderly and pregnant women, and failure to allow for deteriorating accuracy with higher pressure levels. The revised BHS protocol attempts to redress these deficiencies.     

Cuff-Associated Errors of Blood Pressure Recording in Infants and Toddlers

As commercially available cuffs are unsatisfactory, systolic blood pressure (BP) was measured in 88 children aged < 4 years using a conventional Velcro self-adhesive cuff with inflatable bladder. Results were compared with the “separate bladder” method (where the inflatable bladder is wrapped around the arm and is held by a separate Velcro-band), the Pedisphyg cuff and, in 10 patients, with intra-arterial recording. The last 3 methods gave nearly identical results. In contrast, conventional cuffs with a 4 cm and a 5.5 cm wide bladder considerably over-estimated systolic BP, by 13.3 mm Hg (range -2 to 30) for bladder width 4 cm, and by 13.1 mm Hg (range 4 to 22) for bladder width 5.5 cm, respectively. The conventional bladder-cuff thus yields grossly inaccurate results in young children and should be replaced by an alternative method, e.g. the “separate bladder”.     

正常高值血压人群动脉弹性功能的变化

目的　观察正常高值血压人群大小动脉弹性功能指数C1、C2的变化。方法　本研究分三组 ,(1)正常血压组 :收缩压 (SBP) <130mmHg ,且舒张压 (DBP) <85mmHg ,入选 72例 ,男 37例 ,女 35例 ;(2 )正常高值血压组 :SBP130～139mmHg和 /或DBP85～ 89mmHg ,入选 6 0例 ,男 31例 ,女 2 9例 ;(3)高血压组 :SBP≥ 14 0mmHg和 /或舒张压≥ 90mmHg ,入选 6 3例 ,男 31例 ,女 32例。采用HDICVProfilorDO - 2 0 2 0动脉功能检测仪测定大小动脉弹性功能指数C1、C2。结果　正常高值血压人群的C1、C2比正常血压组低 (C1:11 9± 3 4VS 15 3± 4 5 ;C2 :4 0± 2 1VS 5 6± 2 6 ) ,P <0 0 1;比高血压组高 (C1:11 9± 3 4VS 9 4± 3 1;C2 :4 0± 2 1VS 2 8± 1 3) ,P <0 0 1。C1、C2与血压呈负相关 ,即随着血压的升高而下降。结论　正常高值血压人群的动脉弹性功能下降 ,与血压水平呈负相关 ,随着血压的升高而降低     

Practical Aspects of Home and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring is becoming increasingly important in the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Home BP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) are the two forms of monitoring BP in the out-of-office environment. Home BP monitoring is easy to perform, inexpensive, and engages patients in the care of their hypertension. Although ABPM is expensive and not widely available, it remains the gold standard for diagnosing hypertension. Observational studies show that both home BP and ABPM are stronger predictors of hypertension-related outcomes than office BP monitoring. There are no clinical trials showing their superiority over office BP monitoring in guiding the treatment of hypertension, but the consistency of observational data make a compelling case for their preferential use in clinical practice.     

A Method to Define Reference Profiles for Ambulatory Blood Pressure,with Application to Blood Pressure Profiles in 158 Young Subject

ABSTRACT

Ambulatory blood pressures (systolic, SBP, diastolic, DBP) and heart rate were determined over 24h every 15min in the day and every 15min in the night in 72 normal subjects aged 21±1SEM with normal casual office pressures (WHO's criteria: officeDBP ≤ 90mmHg, officeSBP ≤ 140mmHg) and in 86 essential hypertensive subjects aged 21±1, with borderline office pressure (WHO's criteria: officeDBP ≤ 95mmHg, officeSBP ≤ 160mmHg). Complete 24-hour profiles (mean±SD) were reported. In the average, mean ambulatory DBP in the normal group was about 72.5mmHg in “day time” (9 a.m.-9 p.m.) and 63.5mmHg in “night time” (midnight-7 a.m.). Ambulatory SBP in the normal group were about 126mmHg and 110mmHg for the same time periods. In the borderline hypertensive group, the figures were 74mmHg (day-time) and 67mmHg (night time) for diastolic pressure and 140mmHg (day time) and 118mmHg (night time) for systolic pressure. However, when the normal and borderline groups were defined as above on the basis of office pressures, ambulatory blood pressure profiles in the two groups showed a large overlap. A method was proposed to reduce this overlap by partially reallocating the subjects on the basis of ambulatory blood pressure. First, a typical profile was defined for each group and a distance was defined between two arbitrary profiles. Then a subject in the normal (resp. hypertensive) group was reallocated to the hypertensive (normal) group if his profile was closer to the typical profile of the hypertensive (normal) group than the typical profile of his own group. Applied to ambulatory DBP profiles, this method reallocated 49 subjects (over the total of 158), significantly reduced the initial overlap of BP profiles between the two groups, and defined reference profiles for “normal” and “borderline” ambulatory blood pressures.     

家庭血压监测的临床应用

血压测量是诊断高血压病的基本手段,目前主要有三种方法评价血压：诊所偶测血压、动态血压监测和家庭血压监测。家庭血压监测方便、经济,已有大量数据表明：与诊所偶测血压相比,家庭血压监测是评估心血管疾病风险的一个更好的预测因子。同时它能改善高血压患者的治疗依从性,有利于血压控制,监测降压药物疗效,减少医疗费用。另外对鉴别白大衣高血压和隐性高血压也很有帮助。