Dawson A J, Middlemiss C, Vanner T F
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, U.K.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1989 Nov;33(2):147-53. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(89)90207-4.
The use of electronic blood pressure monitors is increasing, but they have received little evaluation in pregnancy. We compared an electronic monitor (Nissei D-175 Digital Monitor) with a London School of Hygiene blind-reading mercury sphygmomanometer in clinical conditions in 41 patients in the third trimester. In 141 comparisons, the electronic monitor read systolic pressures that were 16.53 mmHg higher on average than the mercury sphygmomanometer, the limits of agreement being from -9.13 mmHg to +42.19 mmHg. For diastolic pressures, the electronic monitor read 9.71 mmHg higher on average than the mercury sphygmomanometer, the limits of agreement being from -16.97 mmHg to +36.39 mmHg. The coefficient of repeatability was similar for both instruments with systolic and diastolic readings. As much caution should be exercised with the use of the electronic monitor in late pregnancy as with the mercury sphygmomanometer, and practitioners should be aware of the marked differences that can occur between instruments.
电子血压监测仪的使用正在增加，但它们在孕期的评估较少。我们将一款电子监测仪（日精D - 175数字监测仪）与伦敦卫生学院的盲读式汞柱血压计在41例孕晚期患者的临床条件下进行了比较。在141次对比中，电子监测仪测得的收缩压平均比汞柱血压计高16.53 mmHg，一致性界限为 - 9.13 mmHg至 + 42.19 mmHg。对于舒张压，电子监测仪测得的平均比汞柱血压计高9.71 mmHg，一致性界限为 - 16.97 mmHg至 + 36.39 mmHg。两种仪器在收缩压和舒张压读数方面的重复性系数相似。在妊娠晚期使用电子监测仪时应像使用汞柱血压计一样谨慎，从业者应意识到不同仪器之间可能出现的显著差异。
