Oscillometry and direct blood pressure: a comparative clinical study during deliberate hypotension.

M Gourdeau, R Martin, Y Lamarche, L Tétreault
{"title":"Oscillometry and direct blood pressure: a comparative clinical study during deliberate hypotension.","authors":"M Gourdeau,&nbsp;R Martin,&nbsp;Y Lamarche,&nbsp;L Tétreault","doi":"10.1007/BF03010741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Oscillometry using an automatic monitor was compared with invasive blood pressure monitoring in 21 patients scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia with deliberate hypotension. Six ranges of mean blood pressure measurements were studied, two of which were hypotensive. An excellent correlation was found between the two methods (systolic: r = 0.94; mean: r = 0.93; diastolic: r = 0.88) but there was a large variability among individual subjects. For systolic, diastolic and mean intra-arterial readings above an approximative value of 10.64 KPa (80 mmHg), the oscillometric monitor was found to underestimate blood pressure. Inversely, it was found to overestimate blood pressure for intra-arterial readings under the approximative value of 10.8 KPa (80 mmHg). We conclude that the non-invasive monitor represents a good trend estimation of the invasive radial blood pressure technique, but that wide inter-individual variability and the overestimation of blood pressure below an approximative value of 10.64 KPa (80 mmHg) precludes interchange of techniques when absolute values are considered, especially during controlled hypotension. However, oscillometry could represent a better estimate of central aortic pressure.</p>","PeriodicalId":9371,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Anaesthetists' Society journal","volume":"33 3 Pt 1","pages":"300-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF03010741","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Anaesthetists' Society journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03010741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

Abstract

Oscillometry using an automatic monitor was compared with invasive blood pressure monitoring in 21 patients scheduled for surgery under general anaesthesia with deliberate hypotension. Six ranges of mean blood pressure measurements were studied, two of which were hypotensive. An excellent correlation was found between the two methods (systolic: r = 0.94; mean: r = 0.93; diastolic: r = 0.88) but there was a large variability among individual subjects. For systolic, diastolic and mean intra-arterial readings above an approximative value of 10.64 KPa (80 mmHg), the oscillometric monitor was found to underestimate blood pressure. Inversely, it was found to overestimate blood pressure for intra-arterial readings under the approximative value of 10.8 KPa (80 mmHg). We conclude that the non-invasive monitor represents a good trend estimation of the invasive radial blood pressure technique, but that wide inter-individual variability and the overestimation of blood pressure below an approximative value of 10.64 KPa (80 mmHg) precludes interchange of techniques when absolute values are considered, especially during controlled hypotension. However, oscillometry could represent a better estimate of central aortic pressure.

振荡测量法和直接血压:故意降压的比较临床研究。
在21例全麻手术患者中,采用自动监测仪与有创血压监测进行比较。研究了六个范围的平均血压测量,其中两个是低血压。两种方法之间存在极好的相关性(收缩期:r = 0.94;平均值:r = 0.93;舒张:r = 0.88),但个体受试者之间存在较大差异。对于收缩压、舒张压和平均动脉内读数高于10.64 KPa (80 mmHg)的近似值,发现示波监测仪低估了血压。相反,在10.8 KPa (80 mmHg)的近似值下,发现动脉内读数高估了血压。我们的结论是,无创监测仪代表了有创桡动脉血压技术的良好趋势估计,但个体间的广泛差异和对血压的高估低于10.64 KPa (80 mmHg)的近代值,在考虑绝对值时,特别是在控制性低血压期间,阻碍了技术的交换。然而,振荡测量法可以更好地估计中央主动脉压。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信