Brinton TJ, Walls ED, Yajnik AK, Chio SS
Pulse Metric, Incorporated, San Diego, California, USA.
Blood Press Monit. 1998 Apr;3(2):125-129.
Both the mercury sphygmomanometer and oscillometric measurement methods are widely in use for pediatric, adult, and geriatric patients. However, inherent differences between the methods of measurement may create varying degrees of sensitivity to age and potentially result in differences between measurements for these two techniques. DESIGN: Measurements of systolic and diastolic blood pressures in 154 subjects were obtained using the mercury sphygmomanometer and pulse dynamic oscillometric methods in accordance with the 1987 Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation guidelines. Subjects were separated into three age groups and their data analyzed for differences between measurements for these two techniques. METHODS: Two qualified nurses derived systolic and diastolic blood pressures using phase I and phase IV Korotkoff sounds, respectively, during simultaneous monitoring with the pulse dynamic oscillometric method. RESULTS: Inter-nurse variabilities for measurement derived by mercury sphygmomanometer were 1.8 +/- 4.1 for systolic and 0.9 +/- 3.9for diastolic blood pressure. Mean differences (reference-device) of -5 +/- 5 mmHg (pulse dynamic value higher) for systolic and 1 +/- 5 mmHg (pulse dynamic value lower) for diastolic blood pressure between pulse dynamic and mercury sphygmomanometer values were found for all subjects. However, pulse dynamic systolic blood pressure was significantly higher than mercury sphygmomanometer systolic blood pressure for group 1 (n = 51, aged 11-22 years, mean difference -5.6 mmHg, P = 0.03). A similar trend was observed with group 2 (n = 51, aged 23-54 years, mean difference -4.3 mmHg, P = 0.06). We observedf no significant difference for systolic blood pressure with group 3 (n = 52, aged 55-85 years, mean difference -3.8 mmHg, P > 0.1). For all three groups we found no significant difference for diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: The variation in the agreement of systolic blood pressure measurements can be attributed to the differing effects of age-dependent arterial changes on the measurement methods. The findings indicate that, although the pulse dynamic oscillometric method and mercury sphygmomanometer correlate well when patients of all ages were evaluated as a group, agreement between measurements of systolic blood pressure is dependent on age and the method of measurement employed.
汞柱式血压计和示波测量法在儿科、成人及老年患者中均被广泛使用。然而，测量方法的固有差异可能会对年龄产生不同程度的敏感性，并可能导致这两种技术测量结果的差异。
按照1987年医疗仪器促进协会指南，使用汞柱式血压计和脉搏动态示波法对154名受试者的收缩压和舒张压进行测量。受试者被分为三个年龄组，并对这两种技术测量结果之间的差异进行数据分析。
两名合格护士在使用脉搏动态示波法同步监测期间，分别使用柯氏音第一相和第四相得出收缩压和舒张压。
汞柱式血压计测量的护士间变异性，收缩压为1.8±4.1，舒张压为0.9±3.9。在所有受试者中，脉搏动态法与汞柱式血压计测量值之间，收缩压的平均差异（参考设备）为-5±5 mmHg（脉搏动态值较高），舒张压为1±5 mmHg（脉搏动态值较低）。然而，对于第1组（n = 51，年龄11 - 22岁，平均差异-5.6 mmHg，P = 0.03），脉搏动态收缩压显著高于汞柱式血压计收缩压。第2组（n = 51，年龄23 - 54岁，平均差异-4.3 mmHg，P = 0.06）也观察到类似趋势。第3组（n = 52，年龄55 - 85岁，平均差异-3.8 mmHg，P > 0.1）收缩压未观察到显著差异。对于所有三组，舒张压均未观察到显著差异。
收缩压测量一致性的差异可归因于年龄相关动脉变化对测量方法的不同影响。研究结果表明，虽然将所有年龄段患者作为一组评估时，脉搏动态示波法和汞柱式血压计相关性良好，但收缩压测量的一致性取决于年龄和所采用的测量方法。
