Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/79547
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Journal article |
Title: | Measurement accuracy of a stand-alone oscillometric central blood pressure monitor: A validation report for microlife WatchBP office central |
Author: | Cheng, Hao-Min Sung, Shih-Hsien Shih, Yuan-Ta Chuang, Shao-Yuan Yu, Wen-Chung Chen, Chen-Huan |
Citation: | American Journal of Hypertension, 2013; 26(1):42-50 |
Publisher: | Elsevier Science |
Issue Date: | 2013 |
ISSN: | 0895-7061 |
School/Discipline: | School of Translational Health Science |
Department: | Faculty of Health Sciences |
Statement of Responsibility: | Hao-Min Cheng, Shih-Hsien Sung, Yuan-Ta Shih, Shao-Yuan Chuang, Wen-Chung Yu, Chen-Huan Chen |
Abstract: | BACKGROUND The superiority of prognostic value of blood pressure (BP) measured at central aorta (CBP) over conventional brachial BP measured by cuff-based BP monitors has reignited the development of new noninvasive techniques for estimating CBP. The present study validated the accuracy of CBP measured by a newly developed stand-alone CBP monitor. METHODS The CBP monitor provided readings of brachial systolic BP (SBP), brachial diastolic BP (DBP), central SBP, and central pulse pressure (PP). Brachial PP and central DBP were calculated from the relevant readings. The accuracy of the brachial and central SBP, PP, and DBP was validated against the simultaneously recorded invasively measured central aortic SBP, PP, and DBP, according to the invasive standard requirements for the noninvasive brachial BP monitors from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) in 85 subjects (255 measurements; age range, 30–93 years). RESULTS The mean differences of cuff BP with reference to the invasively measured central SBP, PP, and DBP were −2.6±9.0, −8.6±11.2, and 6.1±7.0mm Hg, respectively, with the former two being obviously underestimated at high CBP and overestimated at low CBP. In contrast, the corresponding differences for the central SBP, PP, and DBP measured by the CBP monitor were −0.6±5.5, −0.4±7.0, and −0.2±6.5mm Hg, respectively, without obvious systematic bias. The distribution of measurement errors for central SBP, PP, and DBP surpassed the AAMI criteria. CONCLUSION Central SBP, PP, and DBP can be measured accurately by a stand-alone automatic BP monitor. |
Keywords: | blood pressure; central pulse pressure; hypertension; oscillometric signals; pressure wave reflection; pulse volume plethysmography; pulse wave analysis |
Rights: | © American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2012. All rights reserved. |
DOI: | 10.1093/ajh/hps021 |
Appears in Collections: | Medicine publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.