Comparison of the SphygmoCor and Omron devices in the estimation of pressure amplification against the invasive catheter measurement
Comparison of the SphygmoCor and Omron devices in the estimation of pressure amplification against the invasive catheter measurement
复制标题
SphygmoCor 和 Omron 设备在压力放大估计与侵入性导管测量方面的比较
DOI：
10.1097/hjh.0b013e32835a8eca
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Wang, Ji-Guang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ding, Feng-Hua;Li, Yan;Wang, Ji-Guang
背景：我们之前测试了sphygmoor和欧姆龙HEM-9000AI设备在估计中心血压方面的准确性。在本研究中，我们研究了这两种装置在与有创导管测量相比的中央至肱动脉压力放大估计中的作用。方法：在33例接受心导管插入术的患者中，我们通过有创导管和两种无创装置同时测量中心血压，通过有创导管和欧姆龙装置的自动振荡血压监测仪同时测量肱血压。压力放大计算为中央-肱动脉收缩压差和脉压差及比值。使用学生t检验、类内相关分析和Bland-Altman方法评估这两种无创设备与有创导管之间的一致性。结果：欧姆龙测量的平均中央-肱动脉收缩压差和脉压差及比值显著低于导管测量（P < 0.001），而sphygmoor测量无显著差异（P≥0.07）。尽管如此，两种设备的无创和有创导管测量的收缩压差和脉压差及比值的类内相关系数相似，sphygmoor分别为0.11 （P = 0.56）、0.38 （P = 0.03）和0.40 (P = 0.02)， Omron分别为0.15 （P = 0.41）、0.23 （P = 0.20）和0.53 （P = 0.002）。结论：如果以有创导管测量为标准，两种无创装置在估计压力放大方面具有相似的准确性，但显然需要特定于设备的诊断标准。脉压比似乎是一个更一致的衡量中央-肱压力放大。
Background: We previously tested the accuracy of the SphygmoCor and Omron HEM-9000AI devices in the estimation of central blood pressure. In the present study, we investigated these two devices in the estimation of central-to-brachial pressure amplification against the invasive catheter measurement. Methods: In 33 individuals undergoing cardiac catheterization, we measured central blood pressure simultaneously by the invasive catheter and each of the two noninvasive devices and brachial blood pressure by the invasive catheter and an automated oscillometric blood pressure monitor of the Omron device. Pressure amplification was calculated as central-to-brachial systolic pressure difference and pulse pressure difference and ratio. The agreement between each of these two noninvasive devices and the invasive catheter was evaluated using the Student's t-test, intraclass correlation analysis, and the Bland–Altman method. Results: The mean central-to-brachial systolic pressure difference and pulse pressure difference and ratio estimated by Omron were significantly lower than those measured by the catheter (P < 0.001), whereas no difference was observed for SphygmoCor (P ≥ 0.07). Nonetheless, the intraclass correlation coefficients for systolic pressure difference and pulse pressure difference and ratio between the noninvasive and invasive catheter measurements were similar for the two devices, being 0.11 (P = 0.56), 0.38 (P = 0.03), and 0.40 (P = 0.02), respectively, for SphygmoCor, and 0.15 (P = 0.41), 0.23 (P = 0.20), and 0.53 (P = 0.002), respectively, for Omron. Conclusion: If the invasive catheter measurement would be considered as standard, the two noninvasive devices have similar accuracy in the estimation of pressure amplification, but apparently require device-specific criteria for diagnosis. Pulse pressure ratio seems to be a more consistent measure of central-to-brachial pressure amplification.