电子血压计与台式水银血压计测量儿童青少年血压的比对研究

目的比较分析电子血压计(示波法)与台式水银血压计(听诊法)对儿童青少年血压的测量结果,对电子血压计测量儿童青少年血压的准确性进行评价。方法 2010年分层整群抽取北京市城、郊3～17岁儿童青少年,各年龄组至少100人,男女各半。问卷调查生活行为信息,测量身高、体质量、腰围,使用电子血压计(欧姆龙HEM-759P)与台式水银血压计分别测量血压两次,交替进行,记录血压及脉搏。比较两法测量结果,Bland-Altman法比较两法测量一致性。结果总计1695名3～17岁儿童青少年参加调查,各年龄组人数基本相同,男女比例0.99。各年龄组电子血压计与台式水银血压计测量结果互有高低,电子血压计测量值高于台式水银血压计居多。两法测量收缩压差值绝对值≤5,≤10和≤15mm Hg所占比例分别为54.2%,82.9%和100%;以台式水银血压计Korotcoff第Ⅳ音(K4)评价舒张压时,两法测量舒张压差值绝对值≤5,≤10和≤15mmHg所占比例分别为42.3%,70.4%和87.2%,以台式水银血压计Korotcoff第Ⅴ音(K5)评价舒张压时,3组比例分别为46.1%,70.6%和84.8%。调整性别、年龄,两法测量收缩压间、电子血压计舒张压与台式水银血压计K4间、电子血压计舒张压与台式水银血压计K5间的偏相关系数分别为0.716、0.448和0.353(P<0.01)。Bland-Altman分析显示两法收缩压差值95%一致性界限为-13.5～19.6mmHg,电子血压计舒张压与台式水银血压计K4差值95%一致性界限为-22.5～15.1mm Hg,电子血压计舒张压与台式水银血压计K5差值95%一致性界限为-20.3～28.4mm Hg。结论电子血压计测量结果高于台式水银血压计,测量结果比较稳定,两方法测量结果一致性好,电子血压计可用于儿童青少年人群血压的现场调查。     

电子血压计测量血压的重复性研究

目的:在一般人群中评价电子血压计测量血压的重复性.方法:选择492例研究对象,所有研究对象在标准状态下采用电子血压计测量血压3次,取3次测量值均数作为平均血压水平,采用重复测量资料的方差检验分析3次测量值之间差异有无统计学意义,同时根据年龄和脉压分层分析可能影响电子血压计测量血压重复性的影响因素.结果:收缩压、舒张压、平均动脉压和脉压的3次测量值间两两比较差异均有统计学意义,第1次测量值最高,第2次和第3次测量值依次降低.根据年龄分组后,在不同年龄组中的3次测量值仍是第1次最高,第2次和第3次测量值依次降低,差异有统计学意义.根据脉压分组后,在脉压<35 mmHg组,收缩压、舒张压、平均动脉压和脉压在3次测量间差异均无统计学意义.在脉压≥35 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa)组,无论收缩压、舒张压还是平均动脉压,3次测量值间两两比较差异均有统计学意义,测量值随着测量次数逐渐降低.结论:电子血压计3次测量间两两比较的差异均有统计学意义,而脉压可能是影响电子血压计测量血压重复性的因素之一.     

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     

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,...     

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。     

使用血压计仪器直接测量血压

自动血压计测量血压的读数更准确众所周知,在测量病人的血压方面,医生的亲自测量,其结果并不是准确。护士相对来说要好一些,但很多人仍然没有掌握正确的使用方法。因为临床医生遵循正确的测量血压的程序所得的结果往往     

电子血压计与汞柱血压计测量结果比较

目的测试电子血压计测量的准确性，寻求电子血压计最有效的测量模式。方法采用分层随机抽样法抽得门诊及住院病人共1500人，固定专人分别用电子血压计固定模式测量法、非固定模式测量法与汞柱血压计测量右上肢肱动脉的血压。结果用电子血压计固定模式测量法与汞柱血压计所测上肢的血压值差异无统计学意义；而电子血压计非固定模式测量法与汞柱血压计所测上肢的血压值差异有统计学意义，血压绝对值收缩压相差（7．5±1．06）mmHg，舒张压相差（9．4±1．06）mmHg。结论电子血压计测量的血压数值是准确的，可代替汞柱血压计测量血压。但由于电子血压计敏感度高，运用固定的测量模式才能确保血压数值的准确性。     

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。     

Age-based differences between mercury sphygmomanometer and pulse dynamic blood pressure measurements

BACKGROUND: Both the mercury sphygmomanometer and oscillometric measurement methods are widely in use for pediatric, adult, and geriatric patients. However, inherent differences between the methods of measurement may create varying degrees of sensitivity to age and potentially result in differences between measurements for these two techniques. DESIGN: Measurements of systolic and diastolic blood pressures in 154 subjects were obtained using the mercury sphygmomanometer and pulse dynamic oscillometric methods in accordance with the 1987 Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation guidelines. Subjects were separated into three age groups and their data analyzed for differences between measurements for these two techniques. METHODS: Two qualified nurses derived systolic and diastolic blood pressures using phase I and phase IV Korotkoff sounds, respectively, during simultaneous monitoring with the pulse dynamic oscillometric method. RESULTS: Inter-nurse variabilities for measurement derived by mercury sphygmomanometer were 1.8 +/- 4.1 for systolic and 0.9 +/- 3.9for diastolic blood pressure. Mean differences (reference-device) of -5 +/- 5 mmHg (pulse dynamic value higher) for systolic and 1 +/- 5 mmHg (pulse dynamic value lower) for diastolic blood pressure between pulse dynamic and mercury sphygmomanometer values were found for all subjects. However, pulse dynamic systolic blood pressure was significantly higher than mercury sphygmomanometer systolic blood pressure for group 1 (n = 51, aged 11-22 years, mean difference -5.6 mmHg, P = 0.03). A similar trend was observed with group 2 (n = 51, aged 23-54 years, mean difference -4.3 mmHg, P = 0.06). We observedf no significant difference for systolic blood pressure with group 3 (n = 52, aged 55-85 years, mean difference -3.8 mmHg, P > 0.1). For all three groups we found no significant difference for diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: The variation in the agreement of systolic blood pressure measurements can be attributed to the differing effects of age-dependent arterial changes on the measurement methods. The findings indicate that, although the pulse dynamic oscillometric method and mercury sphygmomanometer correlate well when patients of all ages were evaluated as a group, agreement between measurements of systolic blood pressure is dependent on age and the method of measurement employed.     

Comparison of Dinamap PRO-100 and mercury sphygmomanometer blood pressure measurements in a population-based study

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of automated oscillometric devices has been questioned. In addition the acceptability of these devices for research under the field conditions is unclear. METHODS: We compared blood pressure (BP) readings obtained using the Dinamap PRO-100 with readings obtained using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer in 305 participants aged 48 to 86 years who were enrolled in the ongoing Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. The BP was measured three times by each device in random order in each participant. RESULTS: Approximately one half of the participants were male and 46.6% had hypertension. The Dinamap and mercury measurements were well correlated (r = 0.89 for systolic BP and r = 0.81 for diastolic BP). Overall the Dinamap underestimated BP: the mean difference (Dinamap - mercury sphygmomanometer) was -0.5 mm Hg (P = .36, SD = 9.8 mm Hg) for systolic BP and -2.9 mm Hg (P < .001, SD = 6.6 mm Hg) for diastolic BP. However, the Dinamap device tended to overestimate systolic BP in participants who were 75 to 86 years of age, who had a pulse pressure >or=60 mm Hg, or who had stages I to III hypertension. On the other hand, the Dinamap underestimated diastolic BP among these same subgroups but with a smaller underestimate than for the rest of the study sample. CONCLUSIONS: Although the BP measurements obtained by the Dinamap PRO-100 tend on average to be slightly lower than those obtained by the standard mercury sphygmomanometer in middle-aged and older persons, the discrepancies may vary with age, pulse pressure, and BP. Health care providers and researchers should know of this variation and should interpret Dinamap-measured BP with caution.     

Accuracy of aneroid sphygmomanometer blood pressure recording compared with digital and mercury measurements in Brazil

Digital, mercury and aneroid blood pressure measurements were carried out in 400 South American adults. There was slight under-reading of the aneroid instrument (hypertension prevalence 30%, compared with 32% for digital and mercury), but its robustness and simplicity makes it a suitable alternative to mercury machines in tropical field conditions.     

Validation of three oscillometric blood pressure devices against auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in children

AIM: To validate Welch-Allyn Vital Sign Monitor, Dinamap Procare-120 and Datascope Accutorr Plus against auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in children aged 5-15 years old according to the International Protocol of European Society of Hypertension adapted for validation in children. METHOD: One hundred and thirty two children were studied (44 for each device; 67 boys, 65 girls). Each underwent seven sequential BP measurements on the right arm resting in the sitting position, alternately with the mercury sphygmomanometer read simultaneously by two independent, trained observers and the test device by a third observer. RESULTS: For the Welch-Allyn monitor, the mean+/-SD of differences (device minus auscultatory BP) were -4.39+/-4.82 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and -4.1+/-7.07 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The device failed phase 2.1 for both systolic blood pressure (55, 91 and 98% were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg, respectively) and diastolic blood pressure measurements (46, 82 and 95% were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg, respectively). For the Dinamap device, the mean+/-SD of differences were -3.08+/-5.21 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and -4.61+/-9.35 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The device passed phase 2.1 for systolic blood pressure (71, 96 and 98% were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg, respectively) but failed for diastolic blood pressure (51, 72 and 91% were within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg, respectively). For the Datascope device, mean+/-SD of differences were -0.9+/-4.33 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and -1.20+/-6.48 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The device passed phase 2.1 in that 84, 97 and 99% of systolic blood pressure, and 61, 89 and 97% of diastolic blood pressure readings were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg, respectively. It also passed phase 2.2 for both systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: We performed an independent validation of three oscillometric BP devices in children. Overall Datascope Accutorr Plus passed, whereas Welch-Allyn Vital Sign Monitor and Dinamap Procare-120 failed an adapted IP-ESH.     

Assessment of sequential same arm agreement of blood pressure measurements by a CVProfilor DO-2020 versus a Baumanometer mercury sphygmomanometer

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of sequential same arm blood pressure measurement by the mercury sphygmomanometer with the oscillometric blood pressure measurements from a device that also determines arterial elasticity. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, clinical study evaluated sequential same arm blood pressure measurements, using a mercury sphygmomanometer (Baumanometer, W. A. Baum Co., Inc., Copiague, New York, USA) and an oscillometric non-invasive device that calculates arterial elasticity (CVProfilor DO-2020 Cardiovascular Profiling System, Hypertension Diagnostics, Inc., Eagan, Minnesota, USA). Blood pressure was measured supine in triplicate, 3 min apart in a randomized sequence after a period of rest. RESULTS: The study population of 230 normotensive and hypertensive subjects included 57% females, 51% Caucasians, and 33% African Americans. The mean difference between test methods of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate was -3.2 +/- 6.9 mmHg, +0.8 +/- 5.9 mmHg, and +1.0 +/- 5.7 beats/minute. For systolic and diastolic blood pressure, 60.9 and 70.4% of sequential measurements by each method were within +/- 5 mmHg. Few or no points fell beyond the mean +/- 2 standard deviations lines for each cuff bladder size. CONCLUSION: Sequential same arm measurements of the CVProfilor DO-2020 Cardiovascular Profiling System measures blood pressure by an oscillometric method (dynamic linear deflation) with reasonable agreement with a mercury sphygmomanometer.     

Evaluation of blood pressure control by repeated ambulatory automatic blood pressure measurements

The aim of this study was to compare the evaluation of blood pressure control in using an automatic blood pressure device (ABPD) and an ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM). METHOD: 41 patients with essential hypertension (HTA) were screened prospectively from April to June 2000 (22 men and 19 female) mean age 63 years old, 2.6 antihypertensive drug per patient). The blood pressure was randomly measure by 2 physicians with an automatic blood pressure device OMRON 705 CP, 3 times. All the patients had a 24 hours ABPM in the month before and after this measure, without change in medication. RESULTS: The mean blood pressure measured was 151/81 mmHg by the first physician, 149/85 mmHg with the physician observer and 131/81 mmHg with the ABPM. The percentage of patient who have an optimal control was significantly less in the ABPD estimation (27% < 140/90 mmHg) than ABPM (Day ABPM < 135/85 mmHg = 51%). In conclusion, the control of hypertension still remains insufficiency even if the utilisation of ABPM may increase the accuracy of that estimation.     

Demise of the mercury sphygmomanometer and the dawning of a new era in blood pressure measurement

After a little more than a century of use, the conventional Riva-Rocci/Korotkoff technique of measuring blood pressure with a mercury sphygmomanometer and stethoscope, is now being relegated to the museum shelves. Affectionately attached though we may be to this clinical measurement, we must acknowledge that the technique is fraught with inaccuracy and that the age of technology has brought more accurate alternative methodologies. However, we must ensure that the automated devices that are replacing the conventional technique are validated independently for accuracy. The Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension has recently published an International Protocol to facilitate the validation of more automated devices than was possible with the earlier more complicated protocols.     

Comparison of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BPM-100(Beta) ) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer

BACKGROUND: To compare directly the accuracy of the BPM-100(Beta) monitor (an automated oscillometric blood pressure device) with standard auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometry. DESIGN: The BPM-100(Beta) was connected in parallel via a T-tube to a mercury sphygmomanometer. The BPM-100(Beta) and two trained observers (blinded from each other and from the BPM-100(Beta)) measured the sitting blood pressure simultaneously. METHODS: Means, standard deviations and ranges were calculated for all the demographic data: age, arm size, heart rate and blood pressure. The agreement between the BPM-100(Beta) and the mean of two observers (the reference) was determined and expressed as the mean +/- SD, as well as the percentage of differences falling within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg. RESULTS: Of the 92 subjects recruited, 85 (92.4%) met the inclusion criteria, and 391 sets of sitting blood pressure and heart rate measurements were available for analysis. The mean difference between the BPM-100(Beta) monitor and the reference was -0.62 +/- 6.96 mmHg for systolic blood pressure, -1.48 +/- 4.80 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure and 0.14 +/- 1.86 beats/min for heart rate. The only limitation of the device was its tendency to underestimate higher systolic blood pressures. This problem has been addressed by a minor change in the algorithm (see the companion publication, Blood Press Monit, 6, 161-165, 2001). CONCLUSION: The BPM-100(Beta) is an accurate blood pressure monitor for the office setting, meeting all requirements of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and achieving an 'A' grade according to the British Hypertension Society protocol.     

Comparison of the automated non-invasive oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BpTRU) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in a paediatric population

BACKGROUND: To directly compare the accuracy of the BpTRU (an automated oscillometric blood pressure device) with standard auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometry in a pediatric population. DESIGN: The BpTRU was connected in parallel with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. Two observers measured the blood pressures at the same time as it was being measured by the BpTRU. The observers and the BpTRU were all blinded from each other. METHODS: For each of the demographic data--subject age, sex and arm sizes--the mean, standard deviation (SD) and range was calculated. The difference between the mean BpTRU and the standard reference measurements (observer average) was calculated with SD and ranges. The percentage of measurements within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg agreement was expressed. RESULTS: From the 36 subjects recruited aged 3-18 years, 162 pairs of sitting blood pressures were included. The difference between the mean BpTRU readings and the reference standard measurements (as determined by the observers) was 1.45+/-5.67 mmHg for systolic blood pressures, and -3.24+/-7.39 mmHg for diastolic pressure and 0.20+/-2.47 bpm for heart rate. CONCLUSION: The BpTRU is of similar accuracy in measuring blood pressure in children as it was in an adult population.