Comparison of auscultatory and oscillometric automated blood pressure monitors in the setting of preeclampsia.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 2 automated blood pressure monitors against mercury sphygmomanometry and intra-arterial blood pressure determination in women with preeclampsia.

STUDY DESIGN

The auscultatory and oscillometric monitors were compared with mercury sphygmomanometry according to the British Hypertension Society protocol and criteria of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation in a group of 30 women with proteinuric preeclampsia. In addition both monitors were compared with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements in a group of 6 women with severe preeclampsia. The mean (+/- SD) of the differences was calculated and a paired t test was used to compare values obtained with each monitor with intra-arterial measurements.

RESULTS

Compared with mercury sphygmomanometry the auscultatory QuietTrak monitor markedly underestimated systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 13 +/- 15 mm Hg. The oscillometric SpaceLabs 90207 monitor also underestimated systolic pressure by 10 +/- 10 mm Hg and diastolic pressure by 8 +/- 7 mm Hg. According to the British Hypertension Society grading criteria both monitors achieved the lowest grade (D) for recording systolic and diastolic pressure. The 2 monitors also did not meet the accuracy criteria stipulated by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Compared with intra-arterial readings the SpaceLabs monitor significantly underestimated systolic and mean arterial pressures (by 19 and 7 mm Hg, respectively, P <. 01). The QuietTrak monitor significantly underestimated systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures (by 25 mm Hg, P <.05, 18 mm Hg, P <.01, and 20 mm Hg, P <.01, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Neither monitor can be recommended for clinical use in women with proteinuric preeclampsia.