Turjanmaa V M, Kalli S T, Uusitalo A J
Department of Clinical Physiology, Tampere University Central Hospital, Finland.
J Hypertens Suppl. 1988 Dec;6(4):S79-81. doi: 10.1097/00004872-198812040-00021.
The accuracy of the indirect standard cuff method of measurement was tested against intra-arterial blood pressure readings (Oxford method) in a series of simple clinical tests: in the sitting, supine and standing positions, during bicycle ergometer test and during recovery. The mean discrepancy between methods varied in tests from -2.3 to 12.9 mmHg for systolic blood pressure level and from -4.3 to 18.2 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure level. Blood pressure responses to other tests were analysed using the value measured in the sitting position as the reference. The mean discrepancy between the methods in test responses varied from -6.3 to 8.9 mmHg for systolic responses and from -2.3 to 20.3 mmHg for diastolic responses. The data analysis indicates that the accuracy of the indirect method varies considerably between tests and also between subjects. We conclude that at present the standard cuff method cannot replace the direct method for determining blood pressure responses and reactivity.
在一系列简单的临床试验中,将间接标准袖带测量法的准确性与动脉内血压读数(牛津法)进行了对比:包括坐姿、仰卧位和站立位,以及在自行车测力计测试期间和恢复过程中。两种测量方法之间的平均差异在收缩压水平测试中为-2.3至12.9 mmHg,在舒张压水平测试中为-4.3至18.2 mmHg。以坐姿测量值作为参考,分析了对其他测试的血压反应。两种测量方法在测试反应中的平均差异,收缩压反应为-6.3至8.9 mmHg,舒张压反应为-2.3至20.3 mmHg。数据分析表明,间接测量法的准确性在不同测试以及不同受试者之间存在很大差异。我们得出结论,目前标准袖带法不能替代直接法来确定血压反应和反应性。