Stewart M J, Gough K, Padfield P L
Department of Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
J Hypertens. 1995 Mar;13(3):297-300.
To determine whether automated blood pressure measuring devices can measure blood pressure accurately in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Comparison of the accuracy of two electronic sphygmomanometers [Takeda UA-751 (Takeda) and Copal UA-251 (Copal)] and two ambulatory blood pressure monitors [Accutracker 1 (Accutracker) and SpaceLabs 90207 (SpaceLabs)] with that of a trained observer using a Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer (Hawksley), using the sequential same-arm technique.
University teaching hospital: medical wards and outpatient department.
Twenty-eight patients, mean +/- SD age 72 +/- 9 years, blood pressure range 90-158/40-96 mmHg, in atrial fibrillation with a controlled ventricular rate.
The proportion of machine readings > 5 mmHg different from the Hawksley reading was compared with that obtained by three sequential Hawksley measurements. The variability of each measuring method was assessed by determining the SDD for the paired readings from each device.
Five per cent of Takeda, 5% of Copal, 14% of Accutracker and 21% of SpaceLabs readings could not be obtained. Sequential testing with the Hawksley resulted in an accuracy at the 5-mmHg level of (systolic/diastolic) 79/79%, compared with 64/54% (P < 0.05 for diastolic) for the Takeda, 68/75% (NS) for the Copal, 50/36% (P < 0.01 for both) for the Accutracker and 50/29% (P < 0.01 for systolic, P < 0.001 for diastolic) for the SpaceLabs. Intrapatient variability, as assessed by SDD, was 8.3/8.6 mmHg for the Hawksley, similar to that for the Copal (7.7/7.3 mmHg) but higher for the Takeda (11.2/19.7 mmHg), the Accutracker (22.4/26.3 mmHg) and the SpaceLabs (7.5/14.8 mmHg).
Accurate measurement of blood pressure with an electronic device is possible in patients who have atrial fibrillation; the Copal UA-251 provides a satisfactory level of accuracy. However, the marked difference between devices and the limited accuracy of the other machines tested here demonstrates the need to ensure that such devices are of proven accuracy in this patient group.
确定自动血压测量设备能否准确测量房颤患者的血压。
采用连续同臂技术，比较两种电子血压计[武田UA - 751（武田）和科帕尔UA - 251（科帕尔）]以及两种动态血压监测仪[Accutracker 1（Accutracker）和太空实验室90207（太空实验室）]与使用Hawksley随机零位血压计（Hawksley）的训练有素的观察者测量血压的准确性。
大学教学医院：内科病房和门诊部。
28例房颤患者，平均年龄±标准差为72±9岁，血压范围为90 - 158/40 - 96 mmHg，心室率控制良好。
将机器读数与Hawksley读数相差>5 mmHg的比例与连续三次Hawksley测量所得比例进行比较。通过确定每个设备配对读数的标准差来评估每种测量方法的变异性。
武田血压计有5%、科帕尔血压计有5%、Accutracker有14%以及太空实验室有21%的读数无法获取。使用Hawksley进行连续测试，在5 mmHg水平的准确性（收缩压/舒张压）为79/79%，相比之下，武田血压计为64/54%（舒张压P < 0.05），科帕尔血压计为68/75%（无显著性差异），Accutracker为50/36%（收缩压和舒张压均P < 0.01），太空实验室为50/29%（收缩压P < 0.01，舒张压P < 0.001）。通过标准差评估的患者内变异性，Hawksley为8.3/8.6 mmHg，与科帕尔血压计相似（7.7/7.3 mmHg），但高于武田血压计（11.2/19.7 mmHg）、Accutracker（22.4/26.3 mmHg）和太空实验室（7.5/14.8 mmHg）。
房颤患者使用电子设备准确测量血压是可行的；科帕尔UA - 251提供了令人满意的准确性水平。然而，不同设备之间的显著差异以及此处测试的其他机器有限的准确性表明，需要确保此类设备在该患者群体中具有经证实的准确性。
