Nouwen Elisabeth, Snijder Marianne, van Montfrans Gert, Wolf Hans
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Hypertens Pregnancy. 2012;31(1):131-9. doi: 10.3109/10641955.2010.544799. Epub 2011 Feb 18.
Validation of two automatic blood pressure devices (Microlife 3BTO-A, Microlife, Taipei, Taiwan and Omron M7, OMRON, Kyoto, Japan) in preeclampsia.
Women (n = 34) admitted to the obstetric department of the Academic Medical Center and the Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, because of preeclampsia were included. Intermittent auscultatory and oscillometric device measurements were performed to form three measurement pairs for each oscillometric device. Comparison was according to the International Protocol for validation of blood pressure measuring devices that was designed by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension.
Both devices passed the first phase of the protocol. In the second phase, OMRON M7 passed for diastolic blood pressure, but failed for systolic blood pressure, whereas Microlife 3BTO-A failed for both. A difference between device and observers of more than 10 mmHg was observed in over 20% of systolic measurements in both devices and in 5% (OMRON M7) or 16% (Microlife 3BTO-A) of diastolic measurements.
Although the use of Omron M7 and Microlife 3BTO-A is acceptable in pregnant women with normal or moderately elevated blood pressure, these devices cannot be recommended in women with severe preeclampsia.
验证两种自动血压测量设备(Microlife 3BTO - A,Microlife公司,台北,台湾;以及欧姆龙M7,欧姆龙公司,京都,日本)在子痫前期患者中的准确性。
纳入因子痫前期入住荷兰阿姆斯特丹学术医疗中心和翁泽利夫弗劳韦加斯豪伊斯医院产科的34名女性。通过间歇性听诊法和示波法测量,为每个示波法测量设备形成三组测量数据对。根据欧洲高血压学会血压监测工作组设计的血压测量设备验证国际协议进行比较。
两种设备均通过了协议的第一阶段。在第二阶段,欧姆龙M7的舒张压测量通过,但收缩压测量未通过,而Microlife 3BTO - A的收缩压和舒张压测量均未通过。两种设备在超过20%的收缩压测量中以及在5%(欧姆龙M7)或16%(Microlife 3BTO - A)的舒张压测量中观察到设备与观察者之间的差异超过10 mmHg。
虽然欧姆龙M7和Microlife 3BTO - A在血压正常或轻度升高的孕妇中使用是可以接受的,但对于重度子痫前期患者不推荐使用这些设备。