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
  • [41] Comparison of blood pressure measurements between an automated oscillometric device and a Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer in the northern Sweden MONICA study
    Eriksson, Marie
    Carlberg, Bo
    Jansson, Jan-Hakan
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2012, 17 (04) : 164 - 170
  • [42] Evaluation of oscillometric blood pressure measurement devices available for online sale
    Vigato, Estefanie Siqueira
    de Souza, Mariana Castro
    Dordetto, Priscila Rangel
    Tatagiba Lamas, Jose Luiz
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ENFERMAGEM, 2022, 75 (04)
  • [43] Calibration of oscillometric non-invasive devices for monitoring blood pressure
    Doh, Il
    Lim, Hyun Kyoon
    Ahn, Bongyoung
    METROLOGIA, 2015, 52 (02) : 291 - 296
  • [44] CORRELATION BETWEEN OBJECTIVE AUTOMATIC AND AUSCULTATORY MERCURY MANOMETER BLOOD-PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
    BIOSCA, MDG
    FERNANDEZCRUZ, A
    MIZUSHIMA, S
    YAMORI, Y
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY, 1990, 16 : S26 - S27
  • [45] Validation of a new algorithm for the BPM-100 electronic oscillometric office blood pressure monitor
    Wright, JM
    Mattu, GS
    Perry, TL
    Gelfer, ME
    Strange, KD
    Zorn, A
    Chen, YQ
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2001, 6 (03) : 161 - 165
  • [46] Validation protocols for blood pressure-measuring devices: status quo and development
    Beime, Beate
    Deutsch, Cornelia
    Gomez, Timothy
    Zwingers, Thomas
    Mengden, Thomas
    Bramlage, Peter
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2016, 21 (01) : 1 - 8
  • [47] Multi-channel architecture for evaluation of automated oscillometric blood pressure devices
    Postolache, Octavian
    Girao, Pedro Silva
    Postolache, Gabriela
    2013 IEEE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MEDICAL MEASUREMENTS AND APPLICATIONS PROCEEDINGS (MEMEA), 2013, : 207 - 212
  • [48] Comparison of mercury sphygmomanometry blood pressure readings with oscillometric and central blood pressure in predicting target organ damage in youth
    Urbina, Elaine M.
    Khoury, Philip R.
    McCoy, Connie E.
    Daniels, Stephen R.
    Dolan, Lawrence M.
    Kimball, Thomas R.
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2015, 20 (03) : 150 - 156
  • [49] Is one measurement enough to evaluate blood pressure among adolescents? A blood pressure screening experience in more than 9000 children with a subset comparison of auscultatory to mercury measurements
    Negroni-Balasquide, Xamayta
    Bell, Cynthia S.
    Samuel, Joyce
    Samuels, Joshua A.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HYPERTENSION, 2016, 10 (02) : 95 - 100
  • [50] Blood pressure measurement in pediatric population: comparison between automated oscillometric devices and mercury sphygmomanometers—a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Keisyanne Araujo-Moura
    Letícia Gabrielle Souza
    Gabriele Luz Mello
    Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes
    European Journal of Pediatrics, 2022, 181 : 9 - 22