Garg Shalabh, Zafar Adnan
Department of Neonatology, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Danat Al Emarat Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Indian Pediatr. 2025 Jun;62(6):433-436. doi: 10.1007/s13312-025-00040-6. Epub 2025 Apr 1.
To compare non-invasive (Doppler and Oscillometric) and invasive (indwelling umbilical arterial catheter, UAC) methods for measuring blood pressure in extremely preterm neonates.
Neonates < 28 weeks gestation were recruited if UAC was inserted as part of their clinical care. Blood pressure measured 4-6 hourly by Oscillometric and Doppler methods was compared with invasive method (10-15 readings/baby).
438 blood pressure recordings were taken from 11 neonates. Compared to invasive method, non-invasive methods underestimated (P = 0.630) and overestimated (P = 0.431 for > 10% overestimation, P = 0.960 for > 20% overestimation) blood pressure. The frequency of blood pressure being within 10% of UAC reading was higher with the Oscillometric method compared to Doppler (41% vs 17%).
Compared to invasive arterial recording, non-invasive methods underestimated as well as overestimated blood pressure in extremely preterm neonates. Oscillometric methods are more reliable compared to Doppler methods.
比较无创（多普勒和示波法）和有创（留置脐动脉导管，UAC）方法测量极早产儿血压的情况。
将孕周<28周且因临床护理需要插入UAC的新生儿纳入研究。将每4 - 6小时通过示波法和多普勒法测量的血压与有创方法（每个婴儿测量10 - 15次读数）进行比较。
从11名新生儿获取了438次血压记录。与有创方法相比，无创方法低估（P = 0.630）和高估（高估>10%时P = 0.431，高估>20%时P = 0.960）血压。与多普勒法相比，示波法测量的血压在UAC读数的10%范围内的频率更高（41%对17%）。
与有创动脉记录相比，无创方法在极早产儿中既低估又高估血压。与多普勒法相比，示波法更可靠。
