Suppr超能文献

研究中的血压测量:听诊法、逐搏血压测量法及动态血压测量法的适用性

Blood pressure measurements in research: suitability of auscultatory, beat-to-beat, and ambulatory blood pressure measurements.

作者信息

Carlson Debra J, Dieberg Gudrun, Mcfarlane James R, Smart Neil A

机构信息

School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

Blood Press Monit. 2019 Feb;24(1):18-23. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000355.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to validate the accuracy of beat-to-beat measurements with those taken with an aneroid sphygmomanometer by auscultatory method. A secondary aim was to explore differences between auscultatory and beat-to-beat blood pressure (BP) with daytime ambulatory BP measurements.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

A total of 46 participants, comprising 21 males, aged 47±13 years, height 171±8.5 cm and weight 82±16.8 kg attended the Exercise Physiology Laboratory at the University of New England (Armidale, New South Wales, Australia). During the visit, participants had their BP - systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) - measured using auscultatory methods and a Finometer. An ambulatory BP monitor was fitted during the same visit and worn for a minimum of 12 h.

RESULTS

Auscultatory measurements were slightly higher than beat-to-beat for both SBP and DBP. There was no difference between auscultatory and beat-to-beat SBP with a mean difference of 0.23 mmHg (P=0.87). There were disparities between auscultatory and beat-to-beat DBP, with a mean difference of 4.82 mmHg (P<0.01). Daytime ambulatory BP was higher than both auscultatory and beat-to-beat measurements for both SBP and DBP, with P less than 0.001 for all measures.

CONCLUSION

There was a high level of reliability in the beat-to-beat SBP with that seen by auscultatory; however, there were disparities in DBP measurements using the same devices, which raise concerns over the accuracy of beat-to-beat DBP. Ambulatory systolic and diastolic measures were higher than beat-to-beat and auscultatory; however, they may be more suitable for monitoring diurnal changes in BP, depending upon the research model.

摘要

目的

本研究的目的是通过听诊法验证逐搏测量与使用无液血压计测量的准确性。第二个目的是通过日间动态血压测量探索听诊血压与逐搏血压(BP)之间的差异。

参与者与方法

共有46名参与者,其中包括21名男性,年龄47±13岁,身高171±8.5厘米,体重82±16.8千克,他们前往新英格兰大学(澳大利亚新南威尔士州阿米代尔)的运动生理学实验室。在此次就诊期间,使用听诊法和Finometer测量参与者的血压——收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)。在同一次就诊期间佩戴动态血压监测仪,并佩戴至少12小时。

结果

听诊测量的SBP和DBP均略高于逐搏测量值。听诊SBP与逐搏SBP之间无差异,平均差异为0.23 mmHg(P = 0.87)。听诊DBP与逐搏DBP之间存在差异,平均差异为4.82 mmHg(P < 0.01)。日间动态血压的SBP和DBP均高于听诊测量值和逐搏测量值,所有测量的P值均小于0.001。

结论

逐搏SBP与听诊测量值具有高度可靠性;然而,使用相同设备测量DBP存在差异,这引发了对逐搏DBP准确性的担忧。动态收缩压和舒张压测量值高于逐搏测量值和听诊测量值;然而,根据研究模型,它们可能更适合监测血压的昼夜变化。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4056/6314505/73db018d2c53/mbp-24-18-g003.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验