Bartsch S, Ostojic D, Schmalgemeier H, Bitter T, Westerheide N, Eckert S, Horstkotte D, Oldenburg O
Kardiologische Klinik, Herz- und Diabeteszentrum NRW, Universitätsklinikum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2010 Dec;135(48):2406-12. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1269408. Epub 2010 Nov 24.
Arterial blood pressure measured by pulse transit time (PTT) can be used as an alternative to the gold standard of invasive measurement. It was the aim of this study to compare these two methods in order to validate PTT in patients with cardiac diseases.
In 40 patients (29 males; mean age 68.7 ± 15 years) in a cardiac intensive care unit, blood pressures were continuously measured by PTT and the standardized invasive method for one hour. Values were analysed and compared in 30-second intervals (9,600 values for each method).
Blood pressures obtained with either method were not statistically different, neither in the whole group nor in subgroups. However, the number of analysable data was significantly higher using the invasive method, by which appropriate signals were obtained in 99.2 % of systolic and in 99.1 % of diastolic blood pressure measurements. In contrast, using the PTT-method, appropriate signals were seen in 85.8 % of systolic and 85.9 % of diastolic pressure measurements.
Blood pressures measured by PTT in patients in cardiac intensive care units provide reliable values over a period of at least one hour. However, the PTT method seems to be more susceptible to errors as evidenced by the number of failed measurements.
通过脉搏传输时间(PTT)测量动脉血压可作为侵入性测量这一黄金标准的替代方法。本研究旨在比较这两种方法,以验证心脏病患者中PTT的有效性。
在心脏重症监护病房的40例患者(29例男性;平均年龄68.7±15岁)中,通过PTT和标准化侵入性方法连续测量血压1小时。以30秒为间隔分析并比较数值(每种方法9600个数值)。
两种方法测得的血压在整个组以及各亚组中均无统计学差异。然而,使用侵入性方法时可分析数据的数量显著更高,通过该方法在99.2%的收缩压测量和99.1%的舒张压测量中获得了合适的信号。相比之下,使用PTT方法时,在85.8%的收缩压测量和85.9%的舒张压测量中看到了合适的信号。
在心脏重症监护病房患者中,通过PTT测量的血压在至少1小时的时间段内提供可靠数值。然而,从测量失败的数量来看,PTT方法似乎更容易出错。