使用示波血压监测仪和汞柱式血压计测量的直立性血压变化的差异。

Differences in orthostatic blood pressure changes measured with an oscillometric blood pressure monitor and a mercury sphygmomanometer.

作者信息

Iqbal P, Fotherby M D, Potter J F

机构信息

University Department of Medicine for the Elderly, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK.

出版信息

Blood Press. 1996 Jul;5(4):222-6. doi: 10.3109/08037059609079675.

DOI:10.3109/08037059609079675

PMID:8809373

Abstract

AIMS

To compare orthostatic blood pressure (BP) changes recorded with the SpaceLabs 90207 BP monitor (SL) and the standard mercury sphygmomanometer (HgS).

METHODS

85 hospital in-patients aged 60-90 years had nine BP measurements recorded by both instruments using the same arm sequential measurement technique in supine and standing position by two observers. Supine BP was taken as the final set of three supine measurements, ie, one made with the SL, and the mean of the two HgS readings immediately before and after the monitor reading. From the SL supine reading was subtracted the three standing SL monitor readings and from the mean of the 2 supine HgS readings was subtracted the six standing measurements taken by the HgS. The orthostatic BP changes recorded by the HgS immediately before and after each SL monitor reading were averaged and compared with the corresponding orthostatic change recorded by the monitor.

RESULTS

The monitor underestimated orthostatic SBP changes at all 3 comparisons compared to the HgS; i) -0.9 +/- 14.9 vs 2.7 +/- 10.3 mmHg, p < 0.05; ii) 0.3 +/- 15.4 vs 4.5 +/- 12.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; iii) 3.5 +/- 16.9 vs 7.5 +/- 14.9 mmHg, p < 0.05, respectively. These differences were more pronounced in males than females. Orthostatic hypotension (defined as SBP fall on standing of > or = 20 mmHg) was recorded in males by the monitor in four (8%) and by the HgS in 12 (25%), p < 0.05. Mean orthostatic DBP changes were similarly recorded by the monitor and HgS. On average only 60% and 77% of orthostatic SBP measurements taken by both instruments agreed within 10 and 15 mmHg respectively while 75% and 88% respectively of orthostatic DBP changes agreed within these limits.

CONCLUSION

Orthostatic BP falls measured by an automatic oscillometric BP monitor may not be equivalent to those taken with a HgS and their use adds a further variable to the comparison of orthostatic BP changes between studies.

摘要

目的

比较使用太空实验室90207血压监测仪（SL）和标准汞柱血压计（HgS）记录的直立性血压（BP）变化。

方法

85名年龄在60 - 90岁的住院患者，由两名观察者使用相同手臂的连续测量技术，在仰卧位和站立位用两种仪器各记录9次血压测量值。仰卧位血压取最后一组三次仰卧位测量值，即一次用SL测量的值，以及在监测仪读数之前和之后立即进行的两次HgS读数的平均值。从SL仰卧位读数中减去三次站立位SL监测仪读数，从两次仰卧位HgS读数的平均值中减去HgS进行的六次站立位测量值。将每次SL监测仪读数之前和之后立即由HgS记录的直立性血压变化进行平均，并与监测仪记录的相应直立性变化进行比较。

结果

与HgS相比，在所有3次比较中，监测仪均低估了直立性收缩压（SBP）变化；i）-0.9±14.9与2.7±10.3 mmHg，p<0.05；ii）0.3±15.4与4.5±12.1 mmHg，p<0.05；iii）3.5±16.9与7.5±14.9 mmHg，p<0.05。这些差异在男性中比女性更明显。监测仪记录男性直立性低血压（定义为站立时SBP下降≥20 mmHg）的有4例（8%），HgS记录的有12例（25%），p<0.05。监测仪和HgS记录的平均直立性舒张压（DBP）变化相似。平均而言，两种仪器进行的直立性SBP测量分别只有60%和77%在10 mmHg和15 mmHg范围内一致，而直立性DBP变化分别有75%和88%在这些范围内一致。