...
首页> 外文期刊>Blood Pressure Monitoring >Differences in oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure measurements recorded by different revisions of the Philips Component Monitoring System.
【24h】

Differences in oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure measurements recorded by different revisions of the Philips Component Monitoring System.

机译:飞利浦组件监测系统的不同修订版记录的示波法非侵入式血压测量值的差异。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a simulator can detect differences in oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure measurements in different revisions of the Philips Component Monitoring System. Philips revised the intraarterial-based algorithm with software revision C.0, and added an auscultation-based algorithm in revision C.1. METHODS: Three methods were adopted. Firstly, differences were assessed using the Dynatech Nevada CuffLink simulator. Five noninvasive blood pressure modules were tested on monitors with software revision C (software revision prior to C.0) and revision C.0. Monitor C.1 allows the selection of the original intraarterial algorithm (as for revision C), the improved intraarterial (revision C.0) or auscultation; two noninvasive blood pressure modules were tested on it.Secondly, pressures were recorded simultaneously from a participant's left and right arms by monitors C and C.0. The monitors were then swapped between arms and a second set of six pressures were recorded. The two sets were subtracted to calculate the differences between monitors, removing interarm differences. The experiment was carried out on two participants.Thirdly, pressures were recorded from three participants with a simultaneous reference auscultatory measurement. Six sets of simultaneous oscillometric and auscultatory determinations were recorded from monitors C and C.0. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: All three methods revealed that the 'original' intraarterial-based algorithm in revision C recorded lower systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures than revision C.0, with the difference in diastolic pressure being the greatest. The difference in diastolic pressures between C and C.0 was up to 15 mmHg. The simulator evaluation finding of higher systolic and diastolic pressures recorded by the revised intraarterial algorithm (C.1 option 3) than by the auscultation-based algorithm (C.1 option 2) is in qualitative agreement with the regression equations of the clinical validation studies. The results suggest that simulators can identify the existence of differing algorithms used to measure blood pressure by the CMS monitor. Philips has continued to develop the algorithms used to determine the pressure by the oscillometric method. While significantly different pressures were recorded by the different revisions, it is interesting that each revision passed clinical validation studies.
机译:目的:研究模拟器是否可以检测到不同版本的飞利浦元件监测系统中示波法无创血压测量的差异。飞利浦用软件修订版C.0修订了基于动脉内的算法,并在修订版C.1中添加了基于听诊的算法。方法:采用三种方法。首先,使用Dynatech Nevada CuffLink仿真器评估差异。在软件版本为C(软件版本在C.0之前)和版本C.0的监视器上测试了五个无创血压模块。监视器C.1允许选择原始的动脉内算法(对于修订C),改进的动脉内(修订C.0)或听诊;在其上测试了两个无创血压模块。其次,监视器C和C.0同时记录了参与者的左臂和右臂的血压。然后将监控器在两臂之间互换,并记录第二组六个压力。减去两组以计算监视器之间的差异,从而消除手臂间差异。实验由两名参与者进行。第三,记录三名参与者的压力并同时进行参考听诊测量。从监视器C和C.0记录了六组同时进行示波和听诊的测定。结果与结论:这三种方法均显示,修订版C中基于“原始”动脉的算法记录的收缩压,舒张压和平均动脉压低于修订版C.0,其中舒张压差最大。 C和C.0之间的舒张压差高达15mmHg。修改后的动脉内算法(C.1选项3)记录的收缩压和舒张压更高的模拟器评估发现,比基于听诊的算法(C.1选项2)记录的更高,这与临床验证研究的回归方程在定性上吻合。结果表明,模拟器可以识别出用于CMS监视器测量血压的不同算法。飞利浦继续开发用于通过示波法确定压力的算法。尽管不同的修订版记录了明显不同的压力,但有趣的是,每个修订版都通过了临床验证研究。

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