The value of a BP determination method using a novel non-invasive BP device against the invasive catheter measurement.
The value of a BP determination method using a novel non-invasive BP device against the invasive catheter measurement.
复制标题
使用新型无创血压装置的血压测定方法相对于有创导管测量的价值
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0100287
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Cheng X
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Xu J;Wu Y;Su H;Hu W;Li J;Wang W;Liu X;Cheng X
目的评价一种新的血压测量方法（脉搏法）的准确性。方法45例择期经右桡动脉行冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）患者。使用了使用比色法（Microlife 3AC 1 -1）或脉冲法（RG-BP 11）的BP装置。在每次PCI开始时，分别在Microlife BP或Pulse BP测量之前测量桡动脉内BP作为其自身参考。PCI结束时，再次测量血压，将Microlife BP和Pulse BP的测量顺序颠倒。计算桡动脉内血压与Microlife（BPi-M）或脉搏血压（BPi-P）在收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）和平均动脉压（MAP）上的差异。同时测量48例患者的肱动脉内血压和桡动脉内血压，计算肱桡动脉血压差（BPr-b）。结果Microlife和Pulse SBP之前使用的桡动脉内SBP参考值相似（145.1±27.7 vs 145.8±24.2 mmHg），但Microlife SBP显著低于Pulse SBP（127.7± 20.5vs130.3 ± 22.7mmHg，P<0.05），因此SBPi-M高于SBPi-P（18.1± 11.8vs14.8 ± 12.8mmHg，P<0.05）。由于平均SBPr-b为12.4 mmHg，脉搏SBP比Microlife SBP更接近预期肱动脉内SBP约3.3 mmHg。同时，Bland-Altman图显示，脉搏SBP测定桡动脉内SBP的95%一致性限值窄于Microlife SBP测定的95%一致性限值（12.0 ± 17.5 vs 15.5 ± 20.6 mmHg）。然而，Pulse DBP和MAP的95%一致性限值与Microlife DBP和MAP相似。结论脉搏法测量SBP的准确性优于动脉血压计法，DBP和MAP的准确性与动脉血压计法相当。
Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new blood pressure (BP) measurement method (Pulse method). Methods This study enrolled 45 patients for selective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via right radial artery. A BP device using either oscillometric (Microlife 3AC1-1) or Pulse method(RG-BP11)was used. At the beginning of each PCI, intra-radial BP was measured before Microlife BP or Pulse BP measurement as its own reference, respectively. At the end of PCI, BP was measured again with the measurement order of Microlife BP and Pulse BP reversed. The differences between intra-radial and Microlife (BPi-M) or Pulse BP (BPi-P) on SBP, DBP and mean artery pressure (MAP) were calculated. Meanwhile, in 48 patients the intra-brachial BP and intra-radial artery BP were measured to calculate the brachial -radial BP difference (BPr-b). Results The intra-radial SBP references used prior to both the Microlife and Pulse SBP that were similar (145.1±27.7 vs 145.8±24.2 mmHg), but the Microlife SBP was significantly lower than the Pulse SBP (127.7±20.5 vs 130.3±22.7 mmHg, P<0.05), thus the SBPi-M was higher than SBPi-P (18.1±11.8 vs 14.8±12.8 mmHg, P<0.05). As the mean SBPr-b was 12.4 mmHg, the Pulse SBP was closer to expected intra-brachial SBP by about 3.3 mmHg than was Microlife SBP to expected intra-brachial SBP. Meanwhile, Bland-Altman plots showed that the 95% limits of agreement for intra-radial SBP by Pulse SBP were narrower than those by Microlife SBP (12.0∼17.5 vs 15.5∼20.6 mmHg). However, the 95% limits of agreement for Pulse DBP and MAP were similar to those for Microlife DBP and MAP. Conclusion Against the invasive BP measurement, the pulse method may provide more accurate SBP and comparable DBP and MAP as compared with the oscillometric method.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Amoore, John Nicholas
通讯作者：
Amoore, John Nicholas
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Farsky, Stefan;Benova, Katarina;Vysocanova, Petra
通讯作者：
Vysocanova, Petra
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Raamat, Rein;Talts, Jaak;Kivastik, Jana
通讯作者：
Kivastik, Jana
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Babbs CF
通讯作者：
Babbs CF
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
影响因子：
4.9
作者：
Ding, Feng-Hua;Li, Yan;Wang, Ji-Guang
通讯作者：
Wang, Ji-Guang