Block F E, Schulte G T
Department Of Anesthesiology, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Int J Clin Monit Comput. 1996 Aug;13(3):167-71. doi: 10.1023/a:1016997232542.
The use of automatic noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices has become a common technique to monitor blood pressure intraoperatively. The usual cuff placement for these devices on the upper arm sometimes poses problems. As an alternative, many clinicians place the cuff on the ankle. This practice has not been previously investigated to determine its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a noninvasive blood pressure cuff on the arm could be replaced by one on the ankle. We monitored 24 patients intraoperatively with two non-invasive blood pressure cuffs, one on the upper arm and one on the ankle. Systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were obtained from each cuff placement at intervals of no shorter than 3 minutes. The time necessary to obtain the measurements and the presence of any artifact were also recorded. A total of 404 pairs of data were obtained and the systolic blood pressure ranged from 82 to 196 mm Hg. The mean and diastolic pressure readings were equivalent between the arm and ankle blood pressure readings. The systolic pressures were not equivalent, reflecting the fact that the ankle systolic blood pressure is physiologically higher than the arm systolic blood pressure. The difference between the times necessary to obtain the readings from arm or ankle was not statistically significant. Eight of the paired readings (2.0%) represented artifact, arbitrarily defined as a difference in mean blood pressure readings of 15 mm Hg between the arm and the ankle. Since the mean blood pressure readings obtained at the arm and at the ankle were statistically equivalent, we concluded that the ankle cuff placement provided a reliable alternative to the placement of the cuff on the arm.
使用自动无创血压(NIBP)设备已成为术中监测血压的常用技术。这些设备通常在上臂放置袖带有时会带来问题。作为一种替代方法,许多临床医生将袖带放在脚踝处。此前尚未对这种做法的有效性进行研究。我们研究的目的是确定手臂上的无创血压袖带是否可以被脚踝处的袖带替代。我们在术中使用两个无创血压袖带对24例患者进行监测,一个在上臂,一个在脚踝。每隔不少于3分钟从每个袖带放置处获取收缩压、舒张压和平均压。还记录了获取测量值所需的时间以及是否存在任何伪差。共获得404对数据,收缩压范围为82至196毫米汞柱。手臂和脚踝血压读数的平均压和舒张压读数相当。收缩压不相当,这反映出脚踝收缩压在生理上高于手臂收缩压这一事实。从手臂或脚踝获取读数所需时间的差异无统计学意义。八对读数(2.0%)表现为伪差,伪差被任意定义为手臂和脚踝平均血压读数相差15毫米汞柱。由于在手臂和脚踝处获得的平均血压读数在统计学上相当,我们得出结论,脚踝袖带放置为在上臂放置袖带提供了可靠的替代方法。