Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Neston, UK.
Vet Res Commun. 2010 Mar;34(3):217-27. doi: 10.1007/s11259-010-9346-9. Epub 2010 Mar 23.
Monitoring blood pressure during anaesthesia is widely recommended in man and animals. The accuracy of any device used to measure blood pressure is an important consideration when selecting monitoring equipment, the ANSI/AAMI SP10 standard is widely cited in this respect in recent veterinary publications. Blood pressure was monitored using invasive and non-invasive techniques during clinical anaesthesia in 19 dogs. The results were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. The bias (and limits of agreement) between invasive and non-invasive measurement was 7.1 mmHg (+/-34.7) for systolic blood pressure, -1.8 mmHg (+/-27.4) for mean blood pressure and 6.9 mmHg (+/-27.5) for diastolic blood pressure. In a clinical setting the bias between invasive and non-invasive measurement techniques was similar or smaller than laboratory reports, however the limits of agreement were considerably wider suggesting that care should be exercised when interpreting NIBP values.
在人和动物的麻醉期间监测血压被广泛推荐。在选择监测设备时,任何用于测量血压的设备的准确性都是一个重要的考虑因素,最近的兽医出版物中广泛引用了 ANSI/AAMI SP10 标准。在 19 只狗的临床麻醉期间,使用有创和无创技术监测血压。使用 Bland-Altman 分析比较结果。有创和无创测量之间的偏差(和一致性界限)为收缩压 7.1mmHg(+/-34.7),平均血压-1.8mmHg(+/-27.4),舒张压 6.9mmHg(+/-27.5)。在临床环境中,有创和无创测量技术之间的偏差与实验室报告相似或更小,但一致性界限要宽得多,这表明在解释 NIBP 值时应谨慎。