Amoore John N, Vacher Emilie, Murray Ian C, Mieke Stephan, King Susan T, Smith Fiona E, Murray Alan
Department of Medical Physics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, UK.
Blood Press Monit. 2007 Oct;12(5):297-305. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e32826fb773.
Oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices determine pressure by analysing the oscillometric waveform using empirical algorithms. Many algorithms analyse the waveform by calculating the systolic and diastolic characteristic ratios, which are the amplitudes of the oscillometric pulses in the cuff at, respectively, the systolic and diastolic pressures, divided by the peak pulse amplitude. A database of oscillometric waveforms was used to study the influences of the characteristic ratios on the differences between auscultatory and oscillometric measurements.
Two hundred and forty-three oscillometric waveforms and simultaneous auscultatory blood pressures were recorded from 124 patients at cuff deflation rates of 2-3 mmHg/s. A simulator regenerated the waveforms, which were presented to two NIBP devices, the Omron HEM-907 [OMRON Europe B.V. (OMCE), Hoofddorp, The Netherlands] and the GE ProCare 400 (GE Healthcare, Tampa, Florida, USA). For each waveform, the paired systolic and paired diastolic pressure differences between device measurements and auscultatory reference pressures were calculated. The systolic and diastolic characteristic ratios, corresponding to the reference auscultatory pressures of each oscillometric waveform stored in the simulator, were calculated. The paired differences between NIBP measured and auscultatory reference pressures were compared with the characteristic ratios.
The mean and standard deviations of the systolic and diastolic characteristic ratios were 0.49 (0.11) and 0.72 (0.12), respectively. The systolic pressures recorded by both devices were lower (negative paired pressure difference) than the corresponding auscultatory pressures at low systolic characteristic ratios, but higher than the corresponding auscultatory pressures at high systolic pressures. Conversely, the differences between the paired diastolic pressure differences were higher at low diastolic characteristic ratios, compared with those at high diastolic characteristic ratios. The paired systolic pressure differences were within +/-5 mmHg for those waveforms with systolic characteristic ratios between 0.4 and 0.7 for the Omron and between 0.3 and 0.5 for the ProCare. The paired diastolic pressure differences were within +/-5 mmHg for those waveforms with diastolic characteristic ratios between 0.4 and 0.6 for the Omron and between 0.5 and 0.8 for the ProCare.
The systolic and diastolic paired oscillometric-auscultatory pressure differences varied with their corresponding characteristic ratios. Good agreement (within 5 mmHg) between the oscillometric and auscultatory pressures occurred for oscillometric pulse amplitude envelopes with specific ranges of characteristic ratios, but the ranges were different for the two devices. Further work is required to classify the different envelope shapes, comparing them with patient conditions, to determine if a clearer understanding of the different waveform shapes would improve the accuracy of oscillometric measurements.
示波法无创血压(NIBP)设备通过使用经验算法分析示波波形来确定血压。许多算法通过计算收缩压和舒张压特征比来分析波形,收缩压和舒张压特征比分别是袖带在收缩压和舒张压时示波脉冲的幅度除以峰值脉冲幅度。利用一个示波波形数据库来研究特征比对听诊法和示波法测量差异的影响。
以2 - 3 mmHg/s的袖带放气速率记录了124例患者的243个示波波形及同步听诊血压。一个模拟器重现这些波形,并将其呈现给两台NIBP设备,即欧姆龙HEM - 907 [欧姆龙欧洲有限公司(OMCE),荷兰霍夫多普]和通用电气ProCare 400(通用电气医疗集团,美国佛罗里达州坦帕)。对于每个波形,计算设备测量值与听诊参考压力之间的配对收缩压和配对舒张压差异。计算与模拟器中存储的每个示波波形的参考听诊压力相对应的收缩压和舒张压特征比。将NIBP测量值与听诊参考压力之间的配对差异与特征比进行比较。
收缩压和舒张压特征比的均值及标准差分别为0.49(0.11)和0.72(0.12)。在低收缩压特征比时,两台设备记录的收缩压均低于(配对压力差为负)相应的听诊压力,但在高收缩压特征比时高于相应的听诊压力。相反,低舒张压特征比时的配对舒张压差异比高舒张压特征比时更大。对于欧姆龙设备,收缩压特征比在0.4至0.7之间的波形,配对收缩压差异在±5 mmHg以内;对于ProCare设备,收缩压特征比在0.3至0.5之间的波形,配对收缩压差异在±5 mmHg以内。对于欧姆龙设备,舒张压特征比在0.4至0.6之间的波形,配对舒张压差异在±5 mmHg以内;对于ProCare设备,舒张压特征比在0.5至0.8之间的波形,配对舒张压差异在±5 mmHg以内。
收缩压和舒张压的配对示波 - 听诊压力差异随其相应的特征比而变化。对于具有特定特征比范围的示波脉冲幅度包络,示波法和听诊法测量之间存在良好的一致性(在5 mmHg以内),但两台设备的范围不同。需要进一步开展工作,对不同的包络形状进行分类,并与患者情况进行比较,以确定对不同波形形状有更清晰的理解是否会提高示波法测量的准确性。