Suppr超能文献

振荡法估测中心血压:与SphygmoCor设备相比验证Mobil-O-Graph的准确性

Oscillometric estimation of central blood pressure: validation of the Mobil-O-Graph in comparison with the SphygmoCor device.

作者信息

Weiss Wolfgang, Gohlisch Christopher, Harsch-Gladisch Christl, Tölle Markus, Zidek Walter, van der Giet Markus

机构信息

Med. Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Nephrologie, Charite-Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

Blood Press Monit. 2012 Jun;17(3):128-31. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e328353ff63.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a major risk factor for a wide range of cardiovascular diseases and is typically identified by measuring blood pressure (BP) at the brachial artery. Although such a measurement may accurately determine diastolic BP, systolic BP is not reflected accurately. Current noninvasive techniques for assessing central aortic BP require additional recording of an arterial pressure wave using a high-fidelity applanation tonometer. Within one measurement cycle, the Mobil-O-Graph BP device uses brachial oscillometric BP waves for a noninvasive estimation of central BP. We therefore validated the Mobil-O-Graph against the SphygmoCor device, which is widely known as the commonly used approach for a noninvasive estimation of central BP.

METHODS

For each individual, we compared three readings of the central BP values obtained by the Mobil-O-Graph and SphygmoCor device consecutively. One hundred individuals (mean age 56.1 ± 15.4 years) were recruited for measurement.Differences between the central BP values of the test device and the SphygmoCor device were calculated for each measurement.

RESULTS

The mean difference (95% confidence interval) for the estimated central systolic BP between both devices was -0.6 ± 3.7 mmHg. Comparison of the central BP values measured by the two devices showed a statistically significant linear correlation (R=0.91, P<0.0001). The mean between-method difference was 0.50 mmHg for central systolic BP estimation. The intrarater reproducibility between both the devices was also comparable. Bland and Altman analyses showed that the mean differences (95% confidence interval) between repeated measurements were 1.89 (0.42-3.36) mmHg and 1.36 (-0.16 to 2.83) mmHg for the SphygmoCor and the Mobil-O-Graph device, respectively. Thus, neither of these differences was statistically significantly different from 0. The limits of agreement were -16.34 to 19.73 and -15.23 to 17.17 mmHg for the SphygmoCor and the Mobil-O-Graph device, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oscillometric noninvasive estimation of central BP with the Mobil-O-Graph BP device is as effective as using the well-established SphygmoCor applanation tonometry device. In comparison, the Mobil-O-Graph combines the widespread benefits of brachial BP measurement and also provides central BP within one measurement.

摘要

背景

高血压是多种心血管疾病的主要危险因素,通常通过测量肱动脉血压(BP)来确定。尽管这种测量可以准确测定舒张压,但收缩压并不能得到准确反映。目前用于评估中心主动脉血压的非侵入性技术需要使用高保真扁平张力计额外记录动脉压力波。在一个测量周期内,Mobil-O-Graph血压装置利用肱动脉示波血压波对中心血压进行非侵入性估计。因此,我们将Mobil-O-Graph与SphygmoCor装置进行了验证,后者是一种广为人知的用于非侵入性估计中心血压的常用方法。

方法

对于每个个体,我们连续比较了通过Mobil-O-Graph和SphygmoCor装置获得的三次中心血压值读数。招募了100名个体(平均年龄56.1±15.4岁)进行测量。计算每次测量时测试装置和SphygmoCor装置中心血压值之间的差异。

结果

两种装置之间估计的中心收缩压平均差异(95%置信区间)为-0.6±3.7 mmHg。两种装置测量的中心血压值比较显示出具有统计学意义的线性相关性(R=0.91,P<0.0001)。中心收缩压估计的方法间平均差异为0.50 mmHg。两种装置的测量者内部重复性也具有可比性。Bland和Altman分析表明,SphygmoCor和Mobil-O-Graph装置重复测量之间的平均差异(95%置信区间)分别为1.89(0.42 - 3.36)mmHg和1.36(-0.16至2.83)mmHg。因此,这些差异均无统计学意义与0显著不同。SphygmoCor和Mobil-O-Graph装置的一致性界限分别为-16.34至19.73 mmHg和-15.23至17.17 mmHg。

结论

使用Mobil-O-Graph血压装置通过示波法非侵入性估计中心血压与使用成熟的SphygmoCor扁平张力测量装置同样有效。相比之下,Mobil-O-Graph兼具肱动脉血压测量的广泛优点,并且在一次测量中即可提供中心血压。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验