Suppr超能文献

袖带示波法与有创血压测量之间的平均动脉压差异

Mean arterial pressure differences between cuff oscillometric and invasive blood pressure.

作者信息

Picone Dean S, Schultz Martin G, Armstrong Matthew K, Black J Andrew, Dwyer Nathan, Roberts-Thomson Philip, Weber Thomas, Sharman James E

机构信息

School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.

出版信息

Hypertens Res. 2025 May;48(5):1749-1758. doi: 10.1038/s41440-025-02165-4. Epub 2025 Mar 3.

Abstract

Differences between automated cuff oscillometric blood pressure (BP) and invasive measurements are well described, but the causes are not fully understood. Automated BP devices record cuff oscillometric mean arterial pressure (MAP) as a key measurement step that is presumed to be accurate, but if not, could create error in cuff systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) estimations. This has never been determined and was the aim of the study. Data from five studies with similar protocols were analysed (N = 262 patients undergoing coronary angiography, 61 ± 11 years, 65% male). Cuff oscillometric MAP was measured using five different models of automated cuff BP devices simultaneous to invasively measured MAP (fluid-filled or solid-state catheters). Cuff SBP and DBP were estimated by device-specific algorithms. Differences (∆) were calculated as cuff-invasive aortic BP. There were significant associations between ∆MAP and ∆SBP in four out of five devices (unstandardised β range = 0.42-1.04). The ∆MAP explained 6-52% of the variance in ∆SBP. In the same four devices, there were significant associations between ∆MAP and ∆DBP (unstandardised β range = 0.57-0.97) and ∆MAP explained 35-52% of the variance in ∆DBP. In conclusion, there are differences between cuff oscillometric MAP and invasive MAP which are associated with ∆SBP and ∆DBP. Further research is required to improve cuff oscillometric BP and greater transparency needed to understand algorithms used in these devices.

摘要

自动袖带示波法测量血压(BP)与有创测量之间的差异已有详尽描述,但原因尚未完全明确。自动血压测量设备将袖带示波法测量的平均动脉压(MAP)作为关键测量步骤,且假定该测量准确无误,但如果不准确,可能会在袖带收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)估计中产生误差。这一点从未得到确定,而这正是本研究的目的。分析了五项采用相似方案的研究数据(N = 262例接受冠状动脉造影的患者,年龄61±11岁,男性占65%)。在使用有创测量MAP(充液或固态导管)的同时,使用五种不同型号的自动袖带血压测量设备测量袖带示波法MAP。袖带SBP和DBP通过特定设备算法进行估计。差异(∆)计算为袖带测量值与主动脉有创测量值之间的差值。在五台设备中的四台,∆MAP与∆SBP之间存在显著关联(未标准化β范围 = 0.42 - 1.04)。∆MAP解释了∆SBP中6% - 52%的方差。在同样的四台设备中,∆MAP与∆DBP之间存在显著关联(未标准化β范围 = 0.57 - 0.97),且∆MAP解释了∆DBP中35% - 52%的方差。总之,袖带示波法MAP与有创MAP之间存在差异,这些差异与∆SBP和∆DBP相关。需要进一步研究以改进袖带示波法血压测量,并且需要更高的透明度来了解这些设备中使用的算法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c302/12055558/5f85f562e9f1/41440_2025_2165_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验