Validation of three oscillometric blood pressure devices against auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in children

被引:136
|
作者
Wong, Sik-Nin
Sung, Rita Yn Tz
Leung, Lettie Chuk-Kwan
机构
[1] Tuen Mun Hosp, Dept Paediat & Adolescent Med, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Prince Wales Hosp, Dept Paediat & Adolescent Med, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[4] Kwong Wah Hosp, Dept Paediat & Adolescent Med, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
blood pressure; children; datascope; Dinamap; European Society of Hypertension; international protocol; oscillometric; validation study; Welch-Allyn;
D O I
10.1097/01.mbp.0000209082.09623.b4
中图分类号
R6 [外科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100210 ;
摘要
Aim To validate Welch-Allyn Vital Sign Monitor, Dinamap Procare-120 and Datascope Accutorr Plus against auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in children aged 5-15 years old according to the International Protocol of European Society of Hypertension adapted for validation in children. Method One hundred and thirty two children were studied (44 for each device; 67 boys, 65 girls). Each underwent seven sequential BP measurements on the right arm resting in the sifting position, alternately with the mercury sphygmomanometer read simultaneously by two independent trained observers and the test device by a third observer. Results For the Welch-Allyn monitor, the mean +/- SD of differences (device minus auscultatory BP) were -4.39 +/- 4.82 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and -4.1 +/- 707 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The device failed phase 2.1 for both systolic blood pressure (55, 91 and 98% were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg, respectively) and diastolic blood pressure measurements (46, 82 and 95% were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg, respectively). For the Dinamap device, the mean +/- SD of differences were -3.08 +/- 5.21 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and -4.61 +/- 9.35 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The device passed phase 2.1 for systolic blood pressure (71, 96 and 98% were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg, respectively) but failed for diastolic blood pressure (51, 72 and 91% were within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg, respectively). For the Datascope device, mean +/- SD of differences were -0.9 +/- 4.33 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and -1.20 +/- 6.48 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The device passed phase 2.1 in that 84, 97 and 99% of systolic blood pressure, and 61, 89 and 97% of diastolic blood pressure readings were within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg, respectively. It also passed phase 2.2 for both systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure. Conclusion We performed an independent validation of three oscillometric BP devices in children. Overall Datascope Accutorr Plus passed, whereas Welch-Allyn Vital Sign Monitor and Dinamap Procare-120 failed an adapted IP-ESH. Blood Press Monit 11:281-291 (C) 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
引用
收藏
页码:281 / 291
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] ACCURACY OF OSCILLOMETRIC BP MONITORS VERSUS MERCURY SPHYGMOMANOMETER IN CRITICALLY ILL CHILDREN
    Baranwal, Arun
    Khan, Adil
    Gupta, Pramod
    Muralid-Haran, Jayashree
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2020, 48
  • [22] Calibration of blood pressure data after replacement of the standard mercury sphygmomanometer by an oscillometric device and concurrent change of cuffs
    Neuhauser, Hannelore K.
    Ellert, Ute
    Thamm, Michael
    Adler, Carolin
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2015, 20 (01) : 39 - 42
  • [23] Automated-auscultatory (Hybrid) sphygmomanometers for clinic blood pressure measurement: a suitable substitute to mercury sphygmomanometer as reference standard?
    Parati, G.
    Ochoa, J. E.
    JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION, 2012, 26 (04) : 211 - 213
  • [24] Comparison of Repeatability of Blood Pressure Measurements between Oscillometric and Auscultatory Methods
    Liu, Chengyu
    Zheng, Dingchang
    Griffiths, Clive
    Murray, Alan
    2015 COMPUTING IN CARDIOLOGY CONFERENCE (CINC), 2015, 42 : 1073 - 1076
  • [25] DIFFERENCES IN BLOOD-PRESSURE LEVELS OBTAINED BY AUSCULTATORY AND OSCILLOMETRIC METHODS
    WEAVER, MG
    PARK, MK
    LEE, DH
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISEASES OF CHILDREN, 1990, 144 (08): : 911 - 914
  • [26] Comparison of auscultatory and oscillometric automated blood pressure monitors in the setting of preeclampsia
    Natarajan, P
    Shennan, AH
    Penny, J
    Halligan, AW
    de Swiet, M
    Anthony, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1999, 181 (05) : 1203 - 1210
  • [27] VALIDITY CHECKING OF OSCILLOMETRIC AND AUSCULTATORY BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
    Zhemanyuk, Svitlana
    Syvolap, Vitaliy
    JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2022, 40 (SUPPL) : E87 - E87
  • [28] Automated-auscultatory (Hybrid) sphygmomanometers for clinic blood pressure measurement: a suitable substitute to mercury sphygmomanometer as reference standard?
    G Parati
    J E Ochoa
    Journal of Human Hypertension, 2012, 26 : 211 - 213
  • [29] Results of a project to calibrate mercury sphygmomanometer blood pressure-measuring devices in Egypt
    Soliman Ghareeb
    Ghada Youssef
    Haytham Soliman Ghareeb
    Hazem Abd El-Mageed
    Muhammad H. Mesalm
    Remon Talaat
    Alaaeldin Eltawil
    Doaa M. Hasan
    M. Mohsen Ibrahim
    Journal of Human Hypertension, 2021, 35 : 921 - 926
  • [30] Comparison of the automated non-invasive oscilliometric blood pressure monitor (BpTRU™) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in a paediatric population
    Mattu, GS
    Heran, BS
    Wright, JM
    BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, 2004, 9 (01) : 39 - 45