Papadopoulos G, Vescio G, Mieke S
Klinik für Anaesthesiologie und operative Intensivmedizin, Freie Universität Berlin.
Anaesthesist. 1993 Jan;42(1):23-8.
In the present report we investigated whether oscillometric and plethysmographic arterial blood pressure measurement techniques yielded different results compared to invasive blood pressure measurements in 18 mechanically ventilated and 14 spontaneously breathing patients. METHODS. Blood pressure was recorded simultaneously with plethysmographic, oscillometric, and invasive systems (FINAPRES 2300, HP 78352A, and 78534A, respectively). Invasive measurements were obtained in the radial artery. Short tubing was chosen in order to avoid transmission errors. The finger cuff of the FINAPRES 2300 was placed on the ipsilateral middle phalanx of the middle finger. The cuff of the oscillometric system was located on the contralateral arm. Differences in arterial blood pressure had been excluded. RESULTS. Histograms of the differences in the various pressure measurements, linear regression, and correlation coefficients were determined for quantitative comparison. The two non-invasive measurement devices (FINAPRES 2300, HP 78352A) yielded similar results in spontaneously breathing patients. In ventilated patients the reliability of oscillometric measurements was worse than that of the photoplethysmographic, especially for diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure values (Table 1, Figs. 2-4). DISCUSSION. The reasons for the differences between invasive and non-invasive measurement techniques are most likely due to problems with cuff handling for the plethysmographic device and the principles of oscillometric measurement. Both methods have to be optimised in hardware and software. However, the photoplethysmographic results showed an improvement in blood pressure measurement in ventilated patients. Due to the remaining deviations between the non-invasive and invasive measurements, especially in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit, direct measurement cannot be replaced by either of the non-invasive methods.
在本报告中，我们调查了在18例机械通气患者和14例自主呼吸患者中，示波法和体积描记法测量动脉血压的技术与有创血压测量相比是否会产生不同的结果。方法。使用体积描记法、示波法和有创系统（分别为FINAPRES 2300、惠普78352A和78534A）同时记录血压。有创测量在桡动脉进行。选择短导管以避免传输误差。FINAPRES 2300的指套置于中指的同侧中节指骨上。示波系统的袖带位于对侧手臂。已排除动脉血压差异。结果。确定了各种压力测量差异的直方图、线性回归和相关系数以进行定量比较。两种无创测量设备（FINAPRES 2300、惠普78352A）在自主呼吸患者中产生了相似的结果。在通气患者中，示波测量的可靠性低于光电容积描记法，尤其是对于舒张压和平均动脉血压值（表1，图2 - 4）。讨论。有创和无创测量技术之间存在差异的原因很可能是由于体积描记设备的袖带操作问题和示波测量原理。两种方法都必须在硬件和软件方面进行优化。然而光电容积描记法的结果显示通气患者的血压测量有所改善。由于无创和有创测量之间仍存在偏差，特别是在重症监护病房的重症患者中，直接测量不能被任何一种无创方法所取代。
