Farhan Kinaan, Naqvi S Tahira Shah, Rizvi Syed Asad Hasan, Zafar Amara, Rawala Muhammad Shabbir
Department of Medicine, Jinnah Medical and Dental College.
Department of Medicine, Dow University of health sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Blood Press Monit. 2020 Feb;25(1):34-38. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000417.
For more than a century since its introduction, mercury sphygmomanometer (HgS) had been the mainstay for office measurement of blood pressure (BP). In light of the environmental and health hazards associated with mercury, there is a need to replace it with mercury-free alternatives all over the world. We aimed to validate the widely used aneroid sphygmomanometer (AnS) by comparing its BP readings against BP readings taken with an HgS.
We compared the BP readings using AnS vs. HgS on a sample of 300 patients of 18 years or older age admitted to a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan.
The differences between mean HgS and AnS BP readings were found to be statistically significant (P-value <0.01). The mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) readings of the two devices were still significantly correlated (r = 0.989; P < 0.01). Similarly, the mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) readings were also significantly correlated (r = 0.988; P < 0.01). The aneroid device identified a higher proportion of hypertensive participants compared to the mercury device.
The difference in the two devices used was found to be significant; however, the readings were correlated with each other. The AnS significantly overestimated BP readings, thereby identifying a higher proportion of hypertensives as compared to the HgS. There is a considerable room for improvement in the accuracy of the AnS, only then an accurate and a well-calibrated AnS could provide an acceptable alternative to the use of the HgS.
自引入以来的一个多世纪里,汞柱式血压计(HgS)一直是诊室血压测量的主要工具。鉴于汞对环境和健康的危害,全球都需要用无汞替代品来取代它。我们旨在通过将广泛使用的无液血压计(AnS)的血压读数与汞柱式血压计的读数进行比较,来验证无液血压计。
我们在巴基斯坦卡拉奇一家三级护理医院收治的300名18岁及以上患者的样本中,比较了使用无液血压计与汞柱式血压计测得的血压读数。
发现汞柱式血压计和无液血压计的平均血压读数差异具有统计学意义(P值<0.01)。两种设备的平均收缩压(SBP)读数仍显著相关(r = 0.989;P < 0.01)。同样地,平均舒张压(DBP)读数也显著相关(r = 0.988;P < 0.01)。与汞柱式设备相比,无液设备识别出的高血压参与者比例更高。
发现所使用的两种设备存在显著差异;然而,读数相互之间是相关的。无液血压计显著高估了血压读数,因此与汞柱式血压计相比,识别出的高血压患者比例更高。无液血压计的准确性有很大的改进空间,只有这样,一个准确且校准良好的无液血压计才能提供汞柱式血压计的可接受替代方案。