Marx G F, Schwalbe S S, Cho E, Whitty J E
Department of Anesthesiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Mar;168(3 Pt 1):796-8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(12)90822-4.
In laboring women a consistent difference has become evident between measurements obtained with an automated blood pressure device and those obtained with the auscultatory method. A prospective study was designed to assess the concordance of these two methods.
Three sets of brachial blood pressure measurements were made by both oscillatory and auscultatory techniques in 30 women in labor, 20 term pregnant women not in labor, and 20 nonpregnant volunteers.
In the nonlaboring women and the nonpregnant controls there was satisfactory agreement between the results of the two methods of measurement. In the parturients systolic pressures were consistently and significantly higher and diastolic pressures consistently and significantly lower with the oscillatory compared with the auscultatory method, but mean arterial pressures were not different.
In laboring women there is a discrepancy between systolic and diastolic pressures obtained by the auscultatory versus the oscillatory method of measurement, although mean pressures are not significantly different. We suggest that during labor the diagnoses of hypertension and hypotension be based on the mean rather than the systolic or diastolic pressure.
在分娩女性中，自动血压测量设备所测结果与听诊法所测结果之间的差异已很明显。设计了一项前瞻性研究来评估这两种方法的一致性。
采用振荡法和听诊法对30名分娩女性、20名足月未分娩孕妇及20名非孕志愿者进行了三组肱动脉血压测量。
在未分娩女性和非孕对照者中，两种测量方法的结果具有良好的一致性。与听诊法相比，振荡法测得的分娩女性收缩压持续且显著更高，舒张压持续且显著更低，但平均动脉压无差异。
在分娩女性中，听诊法与振荡法所测收缩压和舒张压存在差异，尽管平均血压无显著差异。我们建议，在分娩期间，高血压和低血压的诊断应基于平均血压而非收缩压或舒张压。
