Suppr超能文献

动态血压测定的准确性:一项比较研究。

Accuracy of ambulatory blood pressure determination: a comparative study.

作者信息

Barthélémy J C, Geyssant A, Auboyer C, Antoniadis A, Berruyer J, Lacour J R

机构信息

Laboratoire de Physiologie-GIP Exercise, CHU Saint-Etienne, Saint Jean Bonnefonds, France.

出版信息

Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1991 Sep;51(5):461-6. doi: 10.3109/00365519109091640.

Abstract

This study was designed to discriminate, according to their accuracy, between three ambulatory pressurometers (Diasys 200R, Novacor; P IV, Del Mar Avionics; SpaceLab 90202, SpaceLab). The evaluation was performed against invasive arterial reference measurements. Accuracy was assessed by calculating the error on pressure (EOP) as the difference between invasive and non-invasive measurement of arterial blood pressure. For the systolic values, accuracy (mean of EOP differences) and uncertainty (SD of these differences) were -0.9 +/- 9.7, -4.3 +/- 10.1 and -16.7 +/- 10.1 mmHg for, respectively, Diasys, PIV and SpaceLab. For diastolic values, they were, respectively, 5.9 +/- 6.7, 6.8 +/- 8.5 and 9.1 +/- 6.6 mmHg. EOP was then separated in two different types of errors: (i) the error of dispersion appreciated by the index of homogeneity calculated by a Lehmann analysis and leading to a statistical classification (ii) the error due to the drift of EOP with the reference value, this last error being easier to correct. Two different behaviours were observed for the EOP: (i) the drift of EOP of systolic values was significantly larger for the oscillometric (SpaceLab) than for the auscultatory (Diasys and P IV) method, with no difference between Diasys and P IV (ii) the homogeneity index was not statistically different among these three devices. These data suggest that, in case the correction of the drift of EOP is carried out, there is no statistical significant difference in accuracy between these three pressurometers. However, in our experimental conditions, the two ambulatory pressurometers recording the Korotkoff sounds have a better accuracy than the one using the oscillometric approach.

摘要

本研究旨在根据三种动态血压计(Diasys 200R,诺华珂;P IV,德尔马航空电子公司;太空实验室90202,太空实验室)的准确性对它们进行区分。评估是对照有创动脉参考测量值进行的。通过计算压力误差(EOP)来评估准确性,压力误差为动脉血压有创测量值与无创测量值之间的差值。对于收缩压值,Diasys、P IV和太空实验室的准确性(EOP差值的平均值)和不确定度(这些差值的标准差)分别为-0.9±9.7、-4.3±10.1和-16.7±10.1 mmHg。对于舒张压值,它们分别为5.9±6.7、6.8±8.5和9.1±6.6 mmHg。然后,EOP被分为两种不同类型的误差:(i)通过莱曼分析计算的同质性指数所体现的离散误差,并导致统计分类;(ii)EOP随参考值的漂移误差,最后这种误差更容易校正。观察到EOP有两种不同的表现:(i)示波法(太空实验室)的收缩压值EOP漂移明显大于听诊法(Diasys和P IV),Diasys和P IV之间无差异;(ii)这三种设备的同质性指数在统计学上无差异。这些数据表明,如果对EOP的漂移进行校正,这三种血压计在准确性上没有统计学显著差异。然而,在我们的实验条件下,记录柯氏音的两种动态血压计比使用示波法的血压计具有更高的准确性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验