Rutten A J, Ilsley A H, Skowronski G A, Runciman W B
Anaesth Intensive Care. 1986 Feb;14(1):58-65. doi: 10.1177/0310057X8601400113.
Mean brachial artery pressures determined by five different non-invasive automatic oscillometric and one auscultatory preferred (oscillometric back-up) blood pressure (BP) monitors were compared with mean arterial pressures (MAP) obtained by cannulation of the radial artery of the same arm. The devices tested all performed similarly, showing a wide range of variation (+40% to -29%) compared with the directly measured MAP, and all tended to over-read at low values and under-read at high values. Trend information was generally acceptable, but occasionally was misleading. In addition, using one of the devices, systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements were compared with those obtained by auscultation. This gives a range of differences from +22 to -25 mmHg for systolic and +20 to -12 mmHg for diastolic BP measurements. (The average fell within 1.0 mmHg of the auscultatory measurement, with a standard deviation of 10 mmHg.) Thus, the automatic oscillometric BP monitors tested were comparable in accuracy to auscultatory BP measurement, and are satisfactory for routine use in the appropriate clinical context. However, in settings where significance is to be attached to individual BP readings rather than to trends, or where a high degree of accuracy is required, automatic oscillometric machines cannot be regarded as satisfactory alternatives to arterial cannulation.
将五种不同的无创自动示波法血压计以及一种听诊优先(示波法备用)血压监测仪测定的肱动脉平均压,与通过同一手臂桡动脉插管获得的平均动脉压(MAP)进行比较。所测试的设备表现相似,与直接测量的MAP相比,显示出广泛的差异(+40%至-29%),并且在低值时均倾向于读数过高,在高值时则读数过低。趋势信息总体上是可接受的,但偶尔会产生误导。此外,使用其中一种设备,将收缩压和舒张压测量值与听诊获得的测量值进行比较。收缩压测量值的差异范围为+22至-25 mmHg,舒张压测量值的差异范围为+20至-12 mmHg。(平均值在听诊测量值的1.0 mmHg范围内,标准差为10 mmHg。)因此,所测试的自动示波法血压监测仪在准确性方面与听诊法血压测量相当,在适当的临床环境中可用于常规用途。然而,在需要重视个体血压读数而非趋势的情况下,或者在需要高度准确性的情况下,自动示波法机器不能被视为动脉插管的令人满意的替代方法。