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

被引:136
|
作者
Wong, Sik-Nin
Sung, Rita Yn Tz
Leung, Lettie Chuk-Kwan
机构
[1] Tuen Mun Hosp, Dept Paediat & Adolescent Med, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Prince Wales Hosp, Dept Paediat & Adolescent Med, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[4] Kwong Wah Hosp, Dept Paediat & Adolescent Med, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
blood pressure; children; datascope; Dinamap; European Society of Hypertension; international protocol; oscillometric; validation study; Welch-Allyn;
D O I
10.1097/01.mbp.0000209082.09623.b4
中图分类号
R6 [外科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100210 ;
摘要
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 sifting 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 +/- 707 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. Blood Press Monit 11:281-291 (C) 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
引用
收藏
页码:281 / 291
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BIRM-100beta) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer
    Mattu, GS
    Perry, TL
    Wright, JM
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2001, 6 (03) : 153 - 159
  • [2] Can auscultatory blood pressure normative values be used for evaluation of oscillometric blood pressure in children?
    Sulakova, Terezie
    Sulakova, Astrida
    Strnadel, Jiri
    Pavlicek, Jan
    Obermannova, Barbora
    Feber, Janusz
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, 2017, 19 (04) : 381 - 387
  • [3] Comparability of oscillometric to simultaneous auscultatory blood pressure measurement in children
    Ringrose, Jennifer S.
    Alabbas, Abdullah
    Jalali, Afrooz
    Khinda, Harsimran
    Morgan, Catherine
    Yiu, Verna
    Alexander, R. Todd
    Padwal, Raj
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2019, 24 (02) : 83 - 88
  • [4] Calibration of blood pressure data after replacement of the standard mercury sphygmomanometer by an oscillometric device and concurrent change of cuffs
    Neuhauser, Hannelore K.
    Ellert, Ute
    Thamm, Michael
    Adler, Carolin
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2015, 20 (01) : 39 - 42
  • [5] Blood pressure differences between a mercury sphygmomanometer and two automatic devices
    Lim H.K.
    Doh I.
    Ahn B.
    Biomedical Engineering Letters, 2015, 5 (04) : 296 - 301
  • [6] Validation of the OSCAR 2 oscillometric 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor according to the International Protocol for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices
    Jones, SC
    Bilous, M
    Winship, S
    Finn, P
    Goodwin, J
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2004, 9 (04) : 219 - 223
  • [7] Effect of Cuff Design on Auscultatory and Oscillometric Blood Pressure Measurements
    Ringrose, Jennifer S.
    McLean, Donna
    Ao, Peter
    Yousefi, Farahnaz
    Sankaralingam, Sowndramalingam
    Millay, Jack
    Padwal, Raj
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2016, 29 (09) : 1063 - 1069
  • [8] Oscillometric and auscultatory blood pressure measurement in the assessment of blood pressure and target organ damage
    Johansson, Jouni K.
    Puukka, Pauli J.
    Jula, Antti M.
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2014, 19 (01) : 6 - 13
  • [9] Use of oscillometric devices in atrial fibrillation: a comparison of three devices and invasive blood pressure measurement
    Halfon, Matthieu
    Wuerzner, Gregoire
    Marques-Vidal, Pedro
    Taffe, Patrick
    Vaucher, Julien
    Waeber, Bernard
    Liaudet, Lucas
    Ltaief, Zied
    Popov, Milen
    Waeber, Gerard
    BLOOD PRESSURE, 2018, 27 (01) : 48 - 55
  • [10] Oscillometric and auscultatory blood pressure measurement methods in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Duncombe, Stephanie L.
    Voss, Christine
    Harris, Kevin C.
    JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2017, 35 (02) : 213 - 224