Sadler Ryan A, Hall Natalie H, Kass Philip H, Citino Scott B
University of California Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, One Shields Ave, Davis, California 95616, USA.
White Oak Conservation Center, 581705 White Oak Road, Yulee, Florida 32097, USA.
J Zoo Wildl Med. 2013 Dec;44(4):928-35. doi: 10.1638/2012-0292R1.1.
Two indirect blood pressure measurement techniques, Doppler (DOP) sphygmomanometry and oscillometry, applied at the ventral coccygeal artery were compared with simultaneous direct blood pressure measurements at the dorsal pedal artery in 10 anesthetized, captive cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). The DOP method was moderately accurate, with relatively little bias (mean difference 3.8 mmHg) and 88.6% of the DOP systolic arterial pressure measurements being within 10 mmHg of the direct systolic arterial measurement. With the oscillometric (OM) method, 89.2% of the mean arterial pressure measurements were within 10 mmHg of the direct measurement and had the least bias (mean difference 2.3 mmHg), 80.7% of the systolic measurements were within 10 mmHg of the direct measurement and had the second least bias (mean difference 2.3 mmHg), and 59% of the diastolic measurements were within 10 mmHg of the direct measurement and had significant bias (mean difference 7.3 mmHg). However, DOP showed relatively poor precision (SD 11.2 mmHg) compared with OM systolic (SD 8.0 mmHg), diastolic (SD 8.6 mmHg), and mean (SD 5.7 mmHg). Both techniques showed a linear relationship with the direct technique measurements over a wide range of blood pressures. The DOP method tended to underestimate systolic measurements below 160 mmHg and overestimate systolic measurements above 160 mmHg. The OM method tended to underestimate mean pressures below 160 mm Hg, overestimate mean pressures above 160 mmHg, underestimate systolic pressures below 170 mmHg, overestimate systolic pressures above 170 mmHg, and underestimate diastolic pressures throughout the measured blood pressure range. Indirect blood pressure measurement using the ventral coccygeal artery, particularly when using an OM device for mean and systolic arterial pressure, may be useful in the clinical assessment of cheetahs when monitoring trends over time, but caution should be taken when interpreting individual values.
在10只麻醉状态下的圈养猎豹(猎豹属)中,将两种间接血压测量技术,即多普勒(DOP)血压计测量法和示波测量法,应用于尾根腹侧动脉,并与同时在背侧趾动脉进行的直接血压测量结果进行比较。DOP方法具有一定准确性,偏差相对较小(平均差值3.8 mmHg),且88.6%的DOP收缩期动脉压测量值与直接收缩期动脉测量值相差在10 mmHg以内。使用示波测量法(OM)时,89.2%的平均动脉压测量值与直接测量值相差在10 mmHg以内,偏差最小(平均差值2.3 mmHg);80.7%的收缩压测量值与直接测量值相差在10 mmHg以内,偏差次之(平均差值2.3 mmHg);59%的舒张压测量值与直接测量值相差在10 mmHg以内,但偏差较大(平均差值7.3 mmHg)。然而,与OM收缩压(标准差8.0 mmHg)、舒张压(标准差8.6 mmHg)和平均压(标准差5.7 mmHg)相比,DOP的精度相对较差(标准差11.2 mmHg)。在较宽的血压范围内,两种技术与直接测量技术的测量结果均呈线性关系。DOP方法往往会低估160 mmHg以下的收缩压测量值,高估160 mmHg以上的收缩压测量值。OM方法往往会低估160 mmHg以下的平均压,高估160 mmHg以上的平均压,低估170 mmHg以下的收缩压,高估170 mmHg以上的收缩压,并且在整个测量血压范围内都会低估舒张压。使用尾根腹侧动脉进行间接血压测量,尤其是在使用OM设备测量平均动脉压和收缩压时,在监测猎豹随时间变化的趋势时,可能对临床评估有用,但在解释个体值时应谨慎。