全麻手术患者围术期下肢有创血压与无创血压的相关性分析

目的比较全麻手术患者下肢踝部无创血压与同侧足背动脉有创血压的差异。方法选择神经外科择期手术的患者24例,ASAⅠ~Ⅲ级,均行静脉全身麻醉。术中同时监测下肢踝部无创袖带血压和同侧足背动脉置管有创血压。采用Bland-Altman法分析两种血压测量方法的一致性。结果下肢无创SBP、DBP均明显高于有创SBP、DBP(P<0.05)。有创血压值与无创血压值之间具有较好的相关性,SBP与DBP的Pearson相关系数分别为0.833和0.757(P<0.01)。有创SBP与无创SBP的平均偏差-3.8mm Hg,一致性界限为-24.0~16.4mm Hg,有创DBP与无创DBP的平均偏差-5.4mm Hg,一致性界限为-18.1~7.4mm Hg。结论围手术期监测患者下肢血压时应该考虑到无创袖带和动脉内置管两种测压方法所得血压值存在一定的差异。     

应用LiDCOrapid监测缩宫素所致产妇血流动力学变化的临床观察

目的 探讨LiDCOrapid提供的血流动力学指标能否在剖宫产手术患者中及时、有效地反映缩宫素引起的血流动力学改变.方法 选择美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级Ⅰ级,择期剖宫产手术20例,患者入室后应用LiDCOrapid指套、袖带建立无创血压监测(continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure measurement,CNAP).记录患者入室、胎儿娩出、给予缩宫素后即刻、给药后每间隔10s记录至给药后180 s时患者的血流动力学指标:收缩压(systolic blood pressure,SBP)、舒张压(diastolicblood pressure,DBP)、平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure,MAP)、心率(heart rate,HR)、心排血量(cardiac output,CO)、每搏量(stroke volume,SV).记录患者缩宫素相关副作用.结果 给予缩宫素后,LiDCOrapid记录到患者HR、CO、SV增高,同时SBP、DBP、MAP下降,这与国外应用LiDCOplus建立有创动脉压监测所得血流动力学变化趋势一致.以胎儿娩出时血流动力学指标为基础值,SBP、DBP、MAP、HR、CO、SV均于给药后40 s～60 s达峰,达峰时相对基础值百分比分别为(89±12)％、(73±14)％、(81±12)％、(116±12)％、(174±35)％、(150±27)％,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论 LiDCOrapid与LiDCOplus比较,二者具有一致性,均可及时、有效地反映剖宫产手术中缩宫素引起的快速血流动力学变化.健康产妇给予10单位负荷剂量缩宫素后,SBP、DBP、MAP下降,而HR、CO、SV升高.     

连续无创血压监测系统在产科麻醉的应用

目的探讨连续无创血压监测系统(CNAP)CNAP~(TM)monitor 500比较传统的无创袖带血压(NIBP)监测系统应用于腰硬联合麻醉后剖宫产监测低血压发生的时效性。方法选择85例产妇在腰硬联合麻醉下行剖宫产术。总共有1040对产妇的收缩压和舒张压被监测,间隔周期为3 min,观察时间为麻醉前到胎儿娩出后,并记录新生儿的脐静脉血气分析和Apgar评分。结果相比NIBP,每一周期CNAP能监测的最低收缩压平均值(103±20.6 mmHg)明显低于(P0.05)NIBP的平均值(116±17.9 mmHg)和最高的CNAP收缩压平均值(120±19.6 mmHg)。低血压定义为收缩压低于90 mmHg,CNAP监测组低血压的发生率70.58%,而NIBP监测组低血压的发生率为35.29%。当CNAP监测的低血压(收缩压为90 mmHg)时,未发现胎儿酸中毒(脐静脉血p H值7.25)。结论 CNAP能够比NIBP监测出更多的低血压事件,而且动脉血压明显低于NIBP监测系统。从胎儿利益的角度出发,CNAP的监测比NIBP更适于需要腰硬联合的产科手术。     

胸科患者侧卧位术中双侧上肢无创血压与有创血压的比较

目的 探讨胸科患者侧卧位术中双侧上肢无创动脉压(NIBP)与有创动脉压(DirectART)的一致性.方法 胸科于侧卧位行肺癌及食管癌手术患者,麻醉诱导前后及术中同步监测健侧(非开胸侧)上肢Direct ART和双侧上肢NIBP,侧卧位时血压监测值按健侧NIBP的平均动脉压(MAP)数值分为A、B、C三组,A组:MAP＜70 mm Hg;B组:70 mm Hg≤MAP≤100 mm Hg;C组:MAP＞100 mm Hg,每组采集40对同步血压监测值.对各组数值进行均数的t检验并作线性相关分析.结果 侧卧位时三组中的患侧MAP显著低于Direct ART和健侧MAP,相关系数分别为A组r=0.607,B组r=0.913,C组r=0.747;A组和C组中健侧MAP均显著低于Direct ART,相关系数分别为A组r=0.759,B组r=0.811；B组健侧MAP与Direct ART差异无统计学意义,相关系数r=0.928.结论 胸科侧卧位手术中非开胸侧上肢无创动脉压与有创动脉压的线性相关更好,当MAP在70～100 mm Hg范围内时可与有创动脉压一样有效地反映血压变化,但高于或低于此范围时Direct ART的监测更准确.     

基于"心肺交互"的无创循环监测指标评估容量反应性研究进展

基于"心肺交互"的动态血流动力学指标是目前指导液体复苏的金标准,但这些指标的监测往往通过有创方法且操作较复杂。近年来,随着每搏连续无创血压监测系统(continuous non-invasive arterial pressure,CNAP)、血流动力学监测系统和超声测量血流动力学指标等无创手段在临床的出现,这些指标在容量治疗中的应用开辟了新的前景。文章描述了CNAP和超声测量的基于"心肺交互"的动态血流动力学指标及其评估患者容量反应性的临床应用。两种手段在临床上的应用存在一定的争议。CNAP评估患者容量反应性是临床液体治疗的新趋势,但其应用条件有限,故目前不提倡完全采用无创的方法来指导液体治疗。但是,其可以作为有创监测的补充,帮助临床医师进行正确的液体管理,减少不良事件的发生。     

肾上腺素静脉注射引起大鼠血压双向性变化

目的观察不同剂量肾上腺素静脉注射后大鼠动脉血压和心率的变化。方法42只SD雄性大鼠,体重250～300 g,按单次静脉注射肾上腺素的剂量不同随机均分为六组:Ⅰ～Ⅴ组分别为:0.5、1、2、4、8μg/kg肾上腺素,Ⅵ组为生理盐水组。于注射后不同时点记录SBP、DBP和HR,并记录该时段内最高SBP和最低DBP。结果所有肾上腺素组血压均于注射后18 s左右达最高,以SBP的升高最明显(P<0.01);随后,Ⅱ～Ⅴ组出现低血压,以DBP的降低最明显,各组最低DBP分别出现于注射后(1.3±0.5)、(2.2±0.4)、(3.0±0.6)、(3.4±1.1)min(P<0.01)。结论肾上腺素静脉注射于大鼠,小剂量仅引起高血压,较大剂量引起双向性血压变化;且剂量越大,起初的高血压和随后的低血压越严重。     

有创血压与无创血压准确性的评价以及对治疗的影响

背景血压监测在麻醉诱导期至关重要,准确及时地监测血压对指导麻醉期间用药和保障患者的安全具有重要意义。在临床中同一患者的有创血压（invasive blood pressure,IBP）值和无创血压（non-illvasive blood preSSUre,NIBP）值存在一定差异。目的就不同患者IBP及NIBP值的差异以及对治疗的影响作一综述。内容当患者血压较高时IBP值高于NIBP值,血压较低时IBP值低于NIBP值,使用NIBP和IBP同时监测能降低患者围手术期血管活性药物以及血液制品的使用率。趋向围手术期同时使用NIBP和IBP监测,可以帮助我们得到更可靠的血流动力学信息,及时发现病情变化,做出准确及时的处理。     

气腹对腹腔镜胆囊切除患者血压的影响分析

目的:探讨气腹对腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)患者血压的影响。方法:选取2010年1月至2013年1月87例行LC的患者,根据患者血压状况分为3组,每组29例。A组有高血压病史但术前未进行规律治疗,入院时血压符合高血压病诊断;B组有高血压病史并规律治疗,入院时血压正常;C组无高血压病史。对比3组患者气腹前(T1)、气腹后1 min(T2)、5 min(T3)、10 min(T4)、20 min(T5)及气腹解除后10 min(T6)的平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure,MAP)、收缩压(systolic blood pressure,SBP)及舒张压(diastolic blood pressure,DBP)。结果:T1、T2时,3组患者MAP、SBP差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);T3、T4、T5、T6时,A组患者MAP、SBP均高于B、C组,各期差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),B、C组两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。T1时,3组患者DBP差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);T2、T3、T4、T5、T6时,A组患者DBP均高于B、C组,各期差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);B、C两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:气腹对未规律治疗的高血压患者影响较大,术前应掌握好LC适应证,注意加强术前准备及术后监护,麻醉期间加强循环、呼吸功能监护,术中严格控制气腹压力、缩短手术时间。非急诊手术患者,待血压控制满意后施术。     

有创和无创血压监测分析

危重病患者监测和抢救过程中,病情变化快,有时血压低、病人烦躁,无创血压不能准确、及时显示血压的波动,而有创血压能够比较准确、可靠、动态地反映患者血压,利于及时发现并处理病情。我们从2003年1月至2004年10月对290例进行有创血压和无创血压同步比较监测,并对结果进行了对比分析。     

新生儿有创血压监测使用胫后动脉置管的可行性

目的探讨危重新生儿有创血压监测使用胫后动脉置管的可行性及效果。方法将收治NICU行动态血压监测的62例新生儿随机分为两组。观察组32例采用胫后动脉置管,对照组30例采用桡动脉置管,比较两组置管一次性穿刺成功率、留置时间及并发症发生率。结果两组置管留置时间、穿刺点渗血发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05,P0.01),两组一次性穿刺成功率及血肿、堵管、栓塞发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论采用胫后动脉置管对新生儿进行持续有创血压监测,可延长置管留置时间,降低穿刺点渗血发生率,为动脉置管提供了新的途径。     

Accuracy of the CNAP monitor,a noninvasive continuous blood pressure device,in providing beat-to-beat blood pressure readings in the prone position

Study ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of a noninvasive continuous arterial pressure (CNAP) monitor in patients who are positioned prone in the operating room.DesignProspective study.SettingOperating room at a children's hospital.Patients20 pediatric patients, aged 13.8 ± 2 years, and weight 63.7 ± 18.8 kg, scheduled for surgery in the prone position, and for which arterial catheter placement was planned.InterventionsMeasurements were recorded with an arterial line (AL) and a new noninvasive continuous blood pressure (BP) monitor.MeasurementsSystolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean arterial (MAP) pressure readings were captured from an arterial cannula and the CNAP device every minute during anesthesia.Main ResultsThe study cohort consisted of analysis of 4104 pairs of SBP, DBP, and MAP values, which showed an absolute difference between the AL and CNAP device readings of 7.9 ± 6.3 mmHg for SBP, 5.3 ± 4.3 mmHg for DBP, and 4.6 ± 3.9 mmHg for MAP. Bland-Altman analysis of MAP values showed a bias of 0.26 mmHg, with upper and lower limits of agreement of 12.18 mmHg and -11.67 mmHg, respectively. CNAP readings deviated from arterial values by ≤ 5 mmHg in 67% of MAP values, 59% of DBP values, and 43% of SBP readings. The difference was ≤ 10 mmHg for 94% of MAP readings, 90% of DBP values, and 73% of SBP readings.ConclusionsDuring prone positioning, the CNAP monitor provided clinically acceptable accuracy for MAP values, similar to those reported in adults in the supine position.     

Performance of a tonometer for arterial pressure measurement during anesthesia in the elderly

We investigated performance of an arterial tonometer during anesthesia in the elderly. Thirty patients (17 men and 13 women), ranging from 70 to 86 years old, were included, and agreement between tonometric arterial pressure (TAP) and intraarterial pressure (IAP) was calculated. A total of 6487 paired points was sampled, and values for precision (mean absolute difference ± SD) were 6.8 ± 5.2 for systolic, 6.9 ± 4.6 for mean, and 9.2 ± 5.4mmHg for diastolic blood pressures. Values for bias and limits of agreement [mean difference (TAP – IAP) ± SD, mean difference (TAP – IAP) ± 2 SD, respectively] for systolic, mean, and diastolic pressure were 1.2 ± 8.4 and 1.2 ± 16.8, 5.7 ± 5.9 and 5.7 ± 11.8, and 8.6 ± 6.2 and 8.6 ± 12.4mmHg, respectively. Compared with previous data, aging is likely to affect the performance of an arterial tonometer.     

Ability of non-invasive intermittent blood pressure monitoring and a continuous non-invasive arterial pressure monitor (CNAP™) to provide new readings in each 1-min interval during elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia

We compared the ability of automated non-invasive intermittent oscillometric blood pressure monitoring with a new device, CNAP(TM) (continuous non-invasive arterial pressure) to provide a new blood pressure reading in each 1-min interval between spinal anaesthesia and delivery during caesarean section. We also compared the accuracy of continuous non-invasive arterial pressure readings with non-invasive blood pressure measurements before spinal anaesthesia. Fifty-nine women participated. The non-invasive and continuous non-invasive monitors displayed new blood pressure readings in a mean of 82% (11%) and 83% (13%) (p = 0.97) of the one-minute intervals between spinal anaesthesia and delivery, respectively. Continuous non-invasive arterial pressure was more likely to fail on two or more consecutive minutes (p=0.001). From the pre-spinal readings, the mean bias, defined as non-invasive-continuous non-invasive arterial pressure, and limits of agreement (±2SD mean bias) for systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure respectively were +1.3 (±26.0), -2.9 (±21.8) and +2.6 (±20.4) mmHg. The new monitor has disadvantages compared with conventional non-invasive intermittent blood pressure monitoring.     

Correlation between invasive and noninvasive blood pressure measurements in severely burned children

Introduction

Accurate blood pressure monitoring is essential for burn management, with the intra-arterial line method being the gold standard. Here we evaluated agreement between cuff and intra-arterial line methods.

Accuracy of radial arterial pressure measurement during surgery under controlled hypotension

BACKGROUND: Radial arterial pressure underestimates the pressure in the aorta in several clinical situations. A central-to-radial pressure gradient was attributed to intense vasodilation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of radial pressure monitoring during controlled hypotension achieved with profound arterial vasodilation. METHODS: Ten patients with ASA physical status I and II undergoing maxillofacial surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in this prospective study. Radial and femoral arteries were cannulated and connected to a pressure monitoring system. Controlled hypotension was achieved with an infusion of nicardipine titrated to maintain MAP between 50 and 60 mmHg. Simultaneous radial and femoral systolic, mean and diastolic arterial pressures were recorded before, during and after controlled hypotension. Results were expressed as mean +/- SD. Concomitant radial and femoral pressures were compared by a paired Student's test, P < 0.05 being significant. RESULTS: In all, 150 sets of arterial pressures measurement were obtained. There were no statistically significant differences between radial and femoral arterial pressures measured before, during or after controlled hypotension. CONCLUSION: Radial arterial pressure is an accurate measure of central arterial pressure during controlled hypotension achieved with arterial vasodilation.     

股静脉测压法和膀胱测压法在危重患者腹内压监测中的比较

目的：比较股静脉测压法和膀胱测压法在危重患者腹内压（IAP）监测中的应用价值.方法：对2013年1-6月住院治疗的20例ICU重症患者,分别使用两种测压方法进行IAP监测,均每8 h 1次,连续测定3 d,每次随机选择两种方法的测量顺序,共测量720次,比较两种测压法在读数精准性、测压数值、操作时间、并发症和医护人员满意度等方面的异同.结果：股静脉测压法所测压力数值与膀胱测压法相近[（14.14±4.33）mmHg比（12.91±4.75）mmHg,P〉0.05];但是股静脉测压法的操作时间[（57.94±19.00）s]较膀胱测压法更短[（112.49±27.07）s,P〈0.05];股静脉测压法读数精准率（84.44%）较膀胱测压法（49.44%）高（P〈0.01）,操作并发症低至1.1%（4例次）,远低于膀胱测压法的5.3%（19例次,P〈0.05）;医护人员满意度达（3.90±0.26）分,优于膀胱测压法[（2.48±0.19）分,P〈0.01].结论：相对于膀胱测压法而言,股静脉测压法具有测压值相似、操作时间短、读数精准度高、操作并发症少、接纳度高等优点,值得在危重患者IAP监测中推广.     

Continuous intra-abdominal pressure measurement technique

BACKGROUND: Abdominal compartment syndrome can develop within 12 hours of intensive care unit (ICU) admission in high-risk (shock/trauma, burn, pancreatitis, postabdominal aortic surgery) patients. The current standard of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement via the urinary catheter is labor intensive, and its intermittent nature could prevent timely recognition of significant changes in IAP. We propose that continuous IAP (CIAP) can be accurately measured via the irrigation port of a three-way catheter and has good agreement with the standard intermittent IAP (IIAP). METHODS: CIAP was prospectively validated by comparing it with IIAP measurement in general surgical and trauma patients admitted to the ICU with a three-way urinary catheter. CIAP was measured via the irrigation port of the three-way catheter transduced to the bedside monitor as a continuous trace without intermittent clamping of the catheter. The standard IIAP measurements were performed via the urine drainage port after clamping the catheter and filling the bladder with 50 mL of 0.9% saline. Each patient had three separate paired measurements performed in standardized manner to compare CIAP with IIAP. Patients' demographics, injury severity, type of surgery, body mass index (BMI), and the paired individual IAP measurements were recorded. The paired measurements were compared using the Bland-Altman (B-A) method for comparing a new clinical measurement with an established one. Data are presented as mean +/- standard error of the mean. RESULTS: During a 6-month period (ending in July 2003), 25 patients were investigated. The mean age was 61.5 +/- 4 years, 66% were men, and BMI was 29.2 +/- 2 kg/m(2). Six patients had vascular surgical, four elective and three urgent general surgical interventions. There were 12 trauma patients with ISS of 23 +/- 2. The CIAP was 14.2 +/- 0.66 (range 2 to 24) mm Hg, and the IIAP was 14.0 +/- 0.68 (range 3 to 24) mm Hg. Seventy-five percent of the measured pairs were exactly the same; in 21%, there was 1 mm Hg difference and in 4% 2 mm Hg. There was no measurement difference greater than 2 mm Hg. The mean difference between the CIAP and IIAP was 0.019 +/- 0.05 mmHg. The B-A statistics revealed that the difference between the means of measurements in each individual patient was between +/-1.96 SD (95% confidence intervals). The B-A scatter plot did not follow any patterns of typical systematic bias. CONCLUSION: CIAP measurement with a three-way urinary catheter is a simple and accurate method for monitoring IAP. It has an excellent agreement with the IIAP over wide pressure ranges and should replace the current labor-intensive intermittent technique.     

Associations between home blood pressure and mortality in peritoneal dialysis

Objective To investigate the association between the home blood pressure (BP) and morality in peritoneal dialysis (PD). Methods PD patients from the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2016 were studied. Over the first 6 months PD therapy, systolic SB (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) averaged as 5 (＜120 to≥150 mmHg in 10 mmHg increments) and 4 (＜70 to≥90 mmHg in 10 mmHg increments) categories, respectively, as well as continuous measures. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were assessed by using Cox regression models adjusted for demographics, laboratory measurements, comorbid conditions and antihypertensive medications. The relationships between home BP and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were assessed by restricted cubic spline regression model. Results A total of 1663 PD patients were included with a median follow-up of 29.9 months, in which 737 patients (44.3%) were female. The SBP and DBP were (135.2±15.8) mmHg and (83.1±10.5) mmHg, respectively. Two hundred and twenty-one PD patients died during the study period, of which 102 patients (46.2%) died of cardiac-cerebral vascular events. With 130≤SBP＜140 mmHg as a refernece, SBP≥150 mmHg (HR=1.83, 95%CI 1.19-2.82, P=0.005) and SBP＜120 mmHg (HR=2.05, 95%CI 1.29-3.27, P＜0.001) were associated with significantly higher risks of all-cause morality, but not cardiovascular morality. With 80≤DBP＜90 mmHg as a refernece, patients with DBP≥90 mmHg exhibited significantly higher risks of all-cause mortality (HR=1.80, 95%CI 1.21-2.68, P=0.009). SBP presented a U-shaped association with all-cause mortality. DBP presented a J-shaped association with all-cause mortality. Conclusions Higher SBP, lower SBP and higher DBP are associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality in PD patients. However, neither SBP nor DBP is observed statistically significant relationship with the risk of cardiovascular mortality. Further prospective and randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the optimal BP targets and improve the management of hypertension in PD patients.     

A comparative study of measurement of arterial blood pressure using HEM-802F and arterial cannulation

Finger arterial blood pressures determined by a newly developed sphygmomanometer, HEM-802F, were compared with arterial pressure obtained from direct measurement of the radial artery. An excellent correlation was found between the two methods (systolic: r = 0.93, diastolic: r = 0.91), although there was a large variability among individual subjects. The range of differences between them are from +32 to –13mmHg for systolic and +15 to –25mmHg for diastolic blood pressure measurement. HEM-802F underestimated systolic pressure (–4.0mmHg) and overestimated diastolic pressure (+6.7mmHg), compared with intra-arterial readings.The HEM-802F was useful for the non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring during general anesthesia.(Shigemi K, Takahashi H, Hashimoto S et al.: A comparative study of measurement of arterial blood pressure using HEM-802F and arterial cannulation. J Anesth 4: 91–93, 1990)     

Comparison between oscillometric and auscultatory methods of ambulatory blood pressure measurement in hemodialysis patients

INTRODUCTION: 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is commonly used in clinical and research practice. Different methods have been used in BP recording, cuff-oscillometric or Korotkoff sound, and validation studies during ABPM have been performed on general as well as hypertensive populations. Hemodialysis (HD) patients have a high percentage of complications, such as vascular diseases, and they are subject to hyperkinetic blood flows and abrupt body weight changes secondary to HD, which can invalidate BP recording. Therefore, we wanted to compare the 2 methods on an HD population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed 86 ABPMs on 44 patients (aged 60.8 +/- 17.2 years) by using a device capable of the simultaneous recording of oscillometric and auscultatory BP (A&D Takeda TM2421). The data obtained with the 2 different ABPM methods have been compared, and the differences between auscultatory and oscillometric determinations have been analyzed, as presented by Bland and Altman [1986]. RESULTS: The percentage of valid recordings was significantly higher with the oscillometric method than with the auscultatory method (93.6 +/- 11.3% vs. 71.7 +/- 17.04%, p < 0.001). 24-hour diastolic BP and night-time systolic BP were higher when recorded with the oscillometric method (DBP = 75.4 +/- 9.6 mmHg vs. 71.8 +/- 9.6 mmHg, p < 0.001, asleep SBP = 119.7+/-23.3 mmHg vs. 116.2 +/- 25.0 mmHg, p < 0.001), and the systolic night/day BP ratio was also higher(0.92 +/- 0.10vs.0.90 +/- 0.10, p < 0.001). Finally, the BP coefficient of variation ((SD/mean BP) x 100) was higher when auscultatory determinations were used (16.1 +/- 4.6 vs. 14.6 +/- 4.9). The limits of agreement between auscultatory and oscillometric BP determinations were for SBP = -6.44; 7.84 and for DBP = -3.66; 10.86. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between 24-hour oscillometric and auscultatory ABPM were reported in HD patients: the diastolic 24-hour and asleep systolic BP values and the systolic night/day ratio obtained with the oscillometric method were significantly higher. The higher coefficient of variation reported with the auscultatory method and the wider limits of agreement suggest that the 2 methods do not fully coincide and, in our opinion, the oscillometric method is preferable, due to the higher number of 24-hour valid measurements.