Suppr超能文献

同时佩戴两台动态血压监测仪的比较。

A comparison of two ambulatory blood pressure monitors worn at the same time.

机构信息

Renal, Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013 May;15(5):321-5. doi: 10.1111/jch.12098. Epub 2013 Apr 8.

Abstract

There are limited data in the literature comparing two simultaneously worn ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) devices. The authors compared BPs from two monitors (Mobil-O-Graph [I.E.M., Stolberg, Germany] and Spacelabs 90207 [Spacelabs Medical, Issequah, WA]). In the nonrandomized component of the study, simultaneous 8-hour BP and heart rate data were measured by Mobil-O-Graph, consistently applied to the nondominant arm, and Spacelabs to the dominant arm on 12 untreated adults. Simultaneous 8-hour BP and heart data were obtained by the same monitors randomly assigned to a dominant or nondominant arm on 12 other untreated adults. Oscillometric BP profiles were obtained in the dominant and nondominant arms of the above 24 patients using an Accutorr (Datascope, Mahwah, NJ) device. The Spacelabs monitor recorded a 10.2-mm Hg higher systolic pressure in the nonrandomized (P=.0016) and a 7.9-mm Hg higher systolic pressure in the randomized studies (P=.00008) compared with the Mobil-O-Graph. The mean arterial pressures were 1 mm Hg to 2 mm Hg different between monitors in the two studies, and heart rates were nearly identical. Our observations, if confirmed in larger cohorts, support the concern that ABPM device manufacturers consider developing normative databases for their devices.

摘要

文献中比较同时佩戴的两种动态血压监测(ABPM)设备的数据有限。作者比较了两种监测器(Mobil-O-Graph[I.E.M.,德国斯托尔贝格]和 Spacelabs 90207[Spacelabs Medical,华盛顿州伊瑟夸])的血压。在研究的非随机部分,同时测量了 8 小时的 Mobil-O-Graph 血压和心率数据,一致应用于非优势手臂,Spacelabs 则应用于 12 名未经治疗的成年人的优势手臂。另外 12 名未经治疗的成年人的优势或非优势手臂随机分配了相同的监测器,同时测量了 8 小时的血压和心率数据。在上述 24 名患者的优势和非优势手臂上使用 Accutorr(Datascope,新泽西州 Mahwah)设备获得了振荡血压谱。Spacelabs 监测器在非随机研究中记录的收缩压比 Mobil-O-Graph 高 10.2mmHg(P=.0016),在随机研究中高 7.9mmHg(P=.00008)。在两项研究中,两种监测器的平均动脉压相差 1 至 2mmHg,心率几乎相同。如果在更大的队列中得到证实,我们的观察结果支持 ABPM 设备制造商考虑为其设备开发规范数据库的担忧。

相似文献

1
A comparison of two ambulatory blood pressure monitors worn at the same time.同时佩戴两台动态血压监测仪的比较。
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013 May;15(5):321-5. doi: 10.1111/jch.12098. Epub 2013 Apr 8.
2
Blood pressure variability of two ambulatory blood pressure monitors.两种动态血压监测仪的血压变异性
Blood Press Monit. 2014 Apr;19(2):98-102. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000019.
10
BpTRUth: do automated blood pressure monitors outperform mercury?BpTRUth:自动血压监测仪是否优于水银血压计?
J Am Soc Hypertens. 2013 Nov-Dec;7(6):448-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2013.07.002. Epub 2013 Aug 19.

引用本文的文献

2
A study of the VaSera arterial stiffness device in US patients.一项针对美国患者的VaSera动脉硬度检测设备的研究。
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2017 Jul;19(7):661-668. doi: 10.1111/jch.12967. Epub 2017 Apr 25.

本文引用的文献

2
Principles and techniques of blood pressure measurement.血压测量的原则和技术。
Cardiol Clin. 2010 Nov;28(4):571-86. doi: 10.1016/j.ccl.2010.07.006.

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