Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2004
The validity of emergency department triage blood pressure measurements.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Cienki John J, DeLuca Lawrence A, Daniel Natalie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Automated blood pressure (ABP) devices are ubiquitous at emergency department (ED) triage. Previous studies failed to evaluate ABP devices against accepted reference standards or demonstrate triage readings as accurate reflections of blood pressure (BP). This study evaluated ED triage measurements made using an ABP device and assessed agreement between triage BP and BP taken under recommended conditions.
METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at an urban teaching hospital. Patients were enrolled by convenience sampling. Simultaneous automated and manual triage BPs were obtained using one BP cuff with a Y-tube connector. Research assistants were certified in obtaining manual BP as described by the British Hypertension Society (BHS). Patients were placed in a quiet setting, and manual BP was repeated by American Heart Association (AHA) standards. Data analysis was performed using methods described by Bland and Altman. The ABP device was assessed using Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and BHS criteria.
RESULTS: One hundred seventy-one patients were enrolled. Systolic BP (sBP) range was 81 to 218 mm Hg; diastolic BP (dBP) range was 43 to 130 mm Hg. Automated vs. manual sBP difference was 3.8 +/- 11.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.4); dBP difference was 6.6 +/- 9.0 mm Hg (95% CI = -7.9 to -5.2). Manual triage BP vs. AHA standard SBP difference was 11.6 +/- 12.8 mm Hg (95% CI = 9.1 to 14.1); dBP difference was 9.9 +/- 10.4 mm Hg (95% CI = 7.9 to 12.0). The ABP device failed to meet AAMI criteria and received a BHS rating of "D." Poor operator technique and extraneous patient and operator movement appeared to hamper accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: ABP triage measurements show significant discrepancies from a reference standard. Repeat measurements following AHA standards demonstrate significant decreases in the measured blood pressures.
METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at an urban teaching hospital. Patients were enrolled by convenience sampling. Simultaneous automated and manual triage BPs were obtained using one BP cuff with a Y-tube connector. Research assistants were certified in obtaining manual BP as described by the British Hypertension Society (BHS). Patients were placed in a quiet setting, and manual BP was repeated by American Heart Association (AHA) standards. Data analysis was performed using methods described by Bland and Altman. The ABP device was assessed using Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and BHS criteria.
RESULTS: One hundred seventy-one patients were enrolled. Systolic BP (sBP) range was 81 to 218 mm Hg; diastolic BP (dBP) range was 43 to 130 mm Hg. Automated vs. manual sBP difference was 3.8 +/- 11.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1 to 5.4); dBP difference was 6.6 +/- 9.0 mm Hg (95% CI = -7.9 to -5.2). Manual triage BP vs. AHA standard SBP difference was 11.6 +/- 12.8 mm Hg (95% CI = 9.1 to 14.1); dBP difference was 9.9 +/- 10.4 mm Hg (95% CI = 7.9 to 12.0). The ABP device failed to meet AAMI criteria and received a BHS rating of "D." Poor operator technique and extraneous patient and operator movement appeared to hamper accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: ABP triage measurements show significant discrepancies from a reference standard. Repeat measurements following AHA standards demonstrate significant decreases in the measured blood pressures.