Jornal brasileiro de nefrologia · 2012
Similarity between blood pressure values assessed by auscultatory method with mercury sphygmomanometer and automated oscillometric digital device.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pavan Maria Valéria, Saura Glauco Eduardo, Korkes Henri Augusto, Nascimento Karen Moreno, Madeira Neto Nelson Domingues, Dávila Ronaldo, Rodrigues Cibele Isaac Saad, Almeida Fernando Antonio
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: One of the biggest challenges in the management of hypertension is adequate blood pressure (BP) control. To achieve this goal, home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) with automated devices has been encouraged. However, part of the medical community still disputes its validity, believing that HBPM may lead to incorrect readings.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correspondence between the simultaneous measurements of BP with the auscultatory method and an oscillometric digital method, commonly used in HBPM.
METHODS: BP was determined simultaneously in 423 individuals (normotensive and hypertensive) with a validated automated digital device (ONROM 705IT) and with the auscultatory method with a mercury sphygmomanometer. Both devices were connected through a Y-shaped connection to a cuff whose size was adjusted to the arm circumference.
RESULTS: The values represent mean ± SD (minimum-maximum values): age 40.8 ± 16.3 years (18-92), arm circumference 28.2 ± 3.7 cm (19-42), systolic BP (SBP) auscultatory 127.6 ± 22.8 mmHg (69-223), SBP automated 129.5 ± 23.0 mmHg (56-226), diastolic BP (DBP) auscultatory 79.5 ± 12.6 mmHg (49-135) DBP automated 79.0 ± 12.6 mmHg (48-123). The mean difference in SBP between the two methods was 1.9 mmHg (-15 to +19) and 0.5 mmHg for DBP (-19 to +13). The Bland-Altman analysis showed clinically acceptable agreement between the methods.
CONCLUSION: BP measured with the automated method closely mirrors that determined with the conventional auscultatory method and should be used to improve the diagnosis and control of hypertension.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the correspondence between the simultaneous measurements of BP with the auscultatory method and an oscillometric digital method, commonly used in HBPM.
METHODS: BP was determined simultaneously in 423 individuals (normotensive and hypertensive) with a validated automated digital device (ONROM 705IT) and with the auscultatory method with a mercury sphygmomanometer. Both devices were connected through a Y-shaped connection to a cuff whose size was adjusted to the arm circumference.
RESULTS: The values represent mean ± SD (minimum-maximum values): age 40.8 ± 16.3 years (18-92), arm circumference 28.2 ± 3.7 cm (19-42), systolic BP (SBP) auscultatory 127.6 ± 22.8 mmHg (69-223), SBP automated 129.5 ± 23.0 mmHg (56-226), diastolic BP (DBP) auscultatory 79.5 ± 12.6 mmHg (49-135) DBP automated 79.0 ± 12.6 mmHg (48-123). The mean difference in SBP between the two methods was 1.9 mmHg (-15 to +19) and 0.5 mmHg for DBP (-19 to +13). The Bland-Altman analysis showed clinically acceptable agreement between the methods.
CONCLUSION: BP measured with the automated method closely mirrors that determined with the conventional auscultatory method and should be used to improve the diagnosis and control of hypertension.