...
首页> 外文期刊>Blood Pressure Monitoring >Oscillometric estimation of central blood pressure: Validation of the Mobil-O-Graph in comparison with the SphygmoCor device
【24h】

Oscillometric estimation of central blood pressure: Validation of the Mobil-O-Graph in comparison with the SphygmoCor device

机译:示波法估算中心血压:与SphygmoCor设备相比,Mobil-O-Graph的验证

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major risk factor for a wide range of cardiovascular diseases and is typically identified by measuring blood pressure (BP) at the brachial artery. Although such a measurement may accurately determine diastolic BP, systolic BP is not reflected accurately. Current noninvasive techniques for assessing central aortic BP require additional recording of an arterial pressure wave using a high-fidelity applanation tonometer. Within one measurement cycle, the Mobil-O-Graph BP device uses brachial oscillometric BP waves for a noninvasive estimation of central BP. We therefore validated the Mobil-O-Graph against the SphygmoCor device, which is widely known as the commonly used approach for a noninvasive estimation of central BP. METHODS: For each individual, we compared three readings of the central BP values obtained by the Mobil-O-Graph and SphygmoCor device consecutively. One hundred individuals (mean age 56.1±15.4 years) were recruited for measurement.Differences between the central BP values of the test device and the SphygmoCor device were calculated for each measurement. RESULTS: The mean difference (95% confidence interval) for the estimated central systolic BP between both devices was -0.6±3.7 mmHg. Comparison of the central BP values measured by the two devices showed a statistically significant linear correlation (R=0.91, P<0.0001). The mean between-method difference was 0.50 mmHg for central systolic BP estimation. The intrarater reproducibility between both the devices was also comparable. Bland and Altman analyses showed that the mean differences (95% confidence interval) between repeated measurements were 1.89 (0.42-3.36) mmHg and 1.36 (-0.16 to 2.83) mmHg for the SphygmoCor and the Mobil-O-Graph device, respectively. Thus, neither of these differences was statistically significantly different from 0. The limits of agreement were -16.34 to 19.73 and -15.23 to 17.17 mmHg for the SphygmoCor and the Mobil-O-Graph device, respectively. CONCLUSION: Oscillometric noninvasive estimation of central BP with the Mobil-O-Graph BP device is as effective as using the well-established SphygmoCor applanation tonometry device. In comparison, the Mobil-O-Graph combines the widespread benefits of brachial BP measurement and also provides central BP within one measurement.
机译:背景:高血压是广泛的心血管疾病的主要危险因素,通常通过测量肱动脉的血压(BP)来识别。尽管这样的测量可以准确地确定舒张压,但是收缩压不能准确反映。当前用于评估中央主动脉BP的非侵入性技术需要使用高保真压平眼压计额外记录动脉压力波。在一个测量周期内,Mobil-O-Graph BP设备将肱示波BP波用于中央BP的无创估计。因此,我们针对SphygmoCor设备验证了Mobil-O-Graph,这是众所周知的用于无创估计中心血压的常用方法。方法:对于每个人,我们连续比较了Mobil-O-Graph和SphygmoCor设备获得的三个中心BP值读数。招募了一百个人(平均年龄56.1±15.4岁)进行测量。每次测量计算出测试设备和SphygmoCor设备的中心BP值之间的差异。结果:两个装置之间的估计中央收缩压的平均差(95%置信区间)为-0.6±3.7 mmHg。两种设备测得的中央BP值的比较显示出统计学上显着的线性相关性(R = 0.91,P <0.0001)。中心收缩压估计的平均方法间差异为0.50 mmHg。两种设备之间的评估者内可重复性也相当。 Bland和Altman分析显示,对于SphygmoCor和Mobil-O-Graph设备,重复测量之间的平均差异(95%置信区间)分别为1.89(0.42-3.36)mmHg和1.36(-0.16至2.83)mmHg。因此,这些差异在统计学上均未从0显着不同。对于SphygmoCor和Mobil-O-Graph设备,一致的限制分别为-16.34至19.73和-15.23至17.17 mmHg。结论:用Mobil-O-Graph BP装置进行示波法无创估计中央血压与使用成熟的SphygmoCor压平眼压计装置一样有效。相比之下,Mobil-O-Graph结合了臂式BP测量的广泛优势,还可以在一次测量中提供中心BP。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号