OBJECTIVE:
To determine the accuracy of three automatic monitors (arm, wrist, finger) for blood pressure measurement manufactured by Omron compared with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. PRIMRY END POINT: Difference in the mean blood pressure readings from each monitor; the secondary end point was difference in pulse readings.
DESIGN:
A single-visit, crossover trial tested each device twice on the left arm of each participant; the average of the two readings was recorded. The pulse readings from each monitor were also recorded. ANOVA was used to compare mean blood pressure readings and pulse readings from each device.
RESULTS:
A total of 55 persons (mean age 53 y; 36 women) met inclusion criteria and completed the study. The mean systolic and diastolic readings obtained from the electronic arm unit were comparable to the mercury readings (124.4/78.02 vs. 129.45/77.87 mm Hg, respectively; p > 0.05 for both readings). The mean results obtained from the wrist and finger monitors differed significantly from those of the mercury readings (145.44/89.58 and 113.94/69.07 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.05 for both monitors compared with control). No difference was measured in the mean pulse readings between the comparisons (p = 0.72). The absolute difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings from control varied the least with the arm monitor.
CONCLUSIONS:
Compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer, the arm monitor was the most accurate in measuring blood pressure. The wrist and finger monitors resulted in statistically significant mean systolic and diastolic differences compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer.
To determine the accuracy of three automatic monitors (arm, wrist, finger) for blood pressure measurement manufactured by Omron compared with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. PRIMRY END POINT: Difference in the mean blood pressure readings from each monitor; the secondary end point was difference in pulse readings.
A single-visit, crossover trial tested each device twice on the left arm of each participant; the average of the two readings was recorded. The pulse readings from each monitor were also recorded. ANOVA was used to compare mean blood pressure readings and pulse readings from each device.
RESULTS:
A total of 55 persons (mean age 53 y; 36 women) met inclusion criteria and completed the study. The mean systolic and diastolic readings obtained from the electronic arm unit were comparable to the mercury readings (124.4/78.02 vs. 129.45/77.87 mm Hg, respectively; p > 0.05 for both readings). The mean results obtained from the wrist and finger monitors differed significantly from those of the mercury readings (145.44/89.58 and 113.94/69.07 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.05 for both monitors compared with control). No difference was measured in the mean pulse readings between the comparisons (p = 0.72). The absolute difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings from control varied the least with the arm monitor.
CONCLUSIONS:
Compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer, the arm monitor was the most accurate in measuring blood pressure. The wrist and finger monitors resulted in statistically significant mean systolic and diastolic differences compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer.
No comments:
Post a Comment