COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ACCURACY OF RECORDING BLOOD PRESSURE EITHER BY AUTOMATED OSCILLOMETRIC METHOD OR BY SPHYGMOMANOMETER IN BOTH NORMOTENSIVE AND HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS - A PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11i2.21959Keywords:
Blood pressure, Measurement, Sphygmomanometer, OscillometryAbstract
 Objectives: Automatic devices based on oscillometric principle are widely used for the estimation of blood pressure (BP). Mercury sphygmomanometer mean systolic BP (MSBP) and its derived cuff pressure are the traditional mode of estimation which is a validated and authenticated procedure. Automated machines using oscillometric method are slowly replacing the conventional technique. This study was done to compare the BP recorded by the mercury sphygmomanometer MSBP and the automated technique using oscillometric method automated office BP (AOBP).
Methods: Two hundred subjects aged 40–65 years with mid-arm circumference 27–34 cm were recruited. MSBP and AOBP were recorded adhering to guidelines given by the American Heart Association Joint National Committee. The subjects were divided into two groups as normotensive (Group 1) and hypertensive (Group 2), and statistical analysis was performed.
Results: The mean systolic and diastolic pressures estimated by oscillometric method and sphygmomanometer were calculated and compared with each other by paired t-test separately for Groups 1 and 2. In mormotensives (Group 1), the mean systolic pressure MSBP was 114.21±7.5 mmHg and AOBP was 118.24±11.0 mmHg. The mean diastolic MSBP was 72.1±3.5 mmHg and AOBP was 76.4±1.2 mmHg. Subjects of Group 2 (hypertensive) showed mean systolic pressure MSBP of 144.42±18.5 mm Hg and AOBP of 159.74±22 mmHg. The mean diastolic MSBP was 87.2±9.5 mmHg and AOBP was 96.9±9.2 mmHg. In Group 1, the difference was statistically not significant, while in Group 2, comparison by paired t-test showed a mean difference of systolic pressure by 15.32±1.25 (p<0.005), and mean difference of diastolic pressure by 8.9±5.8 (p<0.005).
Conclusion: Hence, we conclude that oscillometric pressure recordings by the automated device are closer to manual measurements in normotensives but showed a significant high value in hypertensives. We suggest caution in treating hypertensives with values derived from automated machines only.
Downloads
References
Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global burden of disease study. Lancet 1997;349:1436-42.
Arnesen T, Nord E. The value of DALY life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. BMJ 1999;319:1423-5.
Catalona WJ, D’Amico AV, Fitzgibbons WF, Kosoko-Lasaki O, Leslie SW, Lynch HT, et al. What the U.S. Preventive services task force missed in its prostate cancer screening recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:137-8.
Mengden T, Binswanger B, Grüne S, Spühler T, Weisser B, Vetter W. Are mercury sphygmomanometers obsolete? Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax 1992;81:96-102.
Jegatheswaran J, Ruzicka M, Hiremath S, Edwards C. Are automated blood pressure monitors comparable to ambulatory blood pressure monitors? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 2017;33:644-52.
Littler WA, Komsuoglu B. Which is the most accurate method of measuring blood pressure? Am Heart J 1989;117:723-8.
Treskes RW, Wolterbeek R, van der Velde ET, Eindhoven DC, Schalij MJ. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of four smartphone-compatible blood pressure monitors in post-myocardial infarction patients. J Telemed Telecare 2017:1357633X17704092.
Mattu GS, Heran BS, Wright JM. Comparison of the automated non-invasive oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BpTRU) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in a paediatric population. Blood Press Monit 2004;9:39-45.
Herpin D, Vaisse B. Non-invasive ambulatory recording of blood pressure. Current data. Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris) 1989;38:103-8.
Rinfret F, Cloutier L, L’Archevêque H, Gauthier M, Laskine M, Larochelle P, et al. The gap between manual and automated office blood pressure measurements results at a hypertension clinic. Can J Cardiol 2017;33:653-7.
Taxak S, Amitchawla, Poojabihani, Sarlahooda,Geetaahlawat, Anandasha, et al. Wrist blood pressure-can it be an acceptable method of monitoring blood pressure in perioperative set up.Int J pharm pharm Sci 2013;5:161-2
Pickering TG. Principles and techniques of blood pressure measurement. Cardiol Clin 2002;20:207-23.
Myers MG, Godwin M, Dawes M, Kiss A, Tobe SW, Kaczorowski J. Measurement of blood pressure in the office. Hypertension 2010;55:195-200.
O’Brien E, Pickering T, Asmar R, Myers M, Parati G, Staessen J, et al. Working group on blood pressure monitoring of the European society of hypertension international protocol for validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults. Blood Press Monit 2002;7:3-17.
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr, et al. The seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure: The JNC 7th Report. JAMA 2003;289:2560-71.
Maxwell MH, Waks AU, Schroth PC, Karam M, Dornfeld LP. Error in blood-pressure measurement due to incorrect cuff size in obese patients. Lancet 1982;2:33-6.
Meng X, Zang G, Fan L, Zheng L, Dai J, Wang X, et al. Non-invasive monitoring of blood pressure using the Philips intellivue MP50 monitor cannot replace invasive blood pressure techniques in surgery patients under general anesthesia. Exp Ther Med 2013;6:9-14.
Lee JH, Kim JM, Ahn KR, Kim CS, Kang KS, Chung JH, et al. Study for the discrepancy of arterial blood pressure in accordance with method, age, body part of measurement during general anesthesia using sevoflurane. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011;60:323-8.
Darovic GO, Vanriper J, Vanriper S. Arterial pressure monitoring. Hemodynamic Monitoring: Invasive and Non-Invasive Clinical Application. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1995. p. 177-210.
O’Brien E, Waeber B, Parati G, Staessen J, Myers MG. Blood pressure measuring devices: Recommendations of the European society of hypertension. BMJ Br Med J 2001;322:531-6.
Van Bergen FH, Weatherhead DS, Treloar AE, Dobkin AB, Buckley JJ. Comparison of indirect and direct methods of measuring arterial blood pressure. Circulation 1954;10:481-90.
Levey AS, Eckardt KU, Tsukamoto Y, Levin A, Coresh J, Rossert J, et al. Definition and classification of chronic kidney disease: a position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int 2005;67:2089-100.
Zion MM, Balkin J, Rosenmann D, Goldbourt U, Reicher-Reiss H, Kaplinsky E, et al. Use of pulmonary artery catheters in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Analysis of experience in 5,841 patients in the SPRINT Registry. SPRINT Study Group. Chest 1990;98:1331-5.
Amal K, Syed A. Elevated blood pressure among patients with hypertension in general hospital of Penang Malaysia-does poor adherence matter? Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2010;2:29-35.
Heinemann M, Sellick K, Rickard C, Reynolds P, McGrail M.
Automated versus manual blood pressure measurement: A randomized crossover trial. Int J Nurs Pract 2008;14:296-302.
Bottini PB, Carr AA, Prisant LM, Rhoades RB. Variability and similarity of manual office and automated blood pressures. J Clin Pharmacol 1992;32:614-9.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
