{"title":"踝关节血压测量,是手臂测量的可接受的替代方法。","authors":"F E Block, G T Schulte","doi":"10.1023/a:1016997232542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of automatic noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices has become a common technique to monitor blood pressure intraoperatively. The usual cuff placement for these devices on the upper arm sometimes poses problems. As an alternative, many clinicians place the cuff on the ankle. This practice has not been previously investigated to determine its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a noninvasive blood pressure cuff on the arm could be replaced by one on the ankle. We monitored 24 patients intraoperatively with two non-invasive blood pressure cuffs, one on the upper arm and one on the ankle. Systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were obtained from each cuff placement at intervals of no shorter than 3 minutes. The time necessary to obtain the measurements and the presence of any artifact were also recorded. A total of 404 pairs of data were obtained and the systolic blood pressure ranged from 82 to 196 mm Hg. The mean and diastolic pressure readings were equivalent between the arm and ankle blood pressure readings. The systolic pressures were not equivalent, reflecting the fact that the ankle systolic blood pressure is physiologically higher than the arm systolic blood pressure. The difference between the times necessary to obtain the readings from arm or ankle was not statistically significant. Eight of the paired readings (2.0%) represented artifact, arbitrarily defined as a difference in mean blood pressure readings of 15 mm Hg between the arm and the ankle. Since the mean blood pressure readings obtained at the arm and at the ankle were statistically equivalent, we concluded that the ankle cuff placement provided a reliable alternative to the placement of the cuff on the arm.</p>","PeriodicalId":77181,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical monitoring and computing","volume":"13 3","pages":"167-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/a:1016997232542","citationCount":"36","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ankle blood pressure measurement, an acceptable alternative to arm measurements.\",\"authors\":\"F E Block, G T Schulte\",\"doi\":\"10.1023/a:1016997232542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of automatic noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices has become a common technique to monitor blood pressure intraoperatively. The usual cuff placement for these devices on the upper arm sometimes poses problems. As an alternative, many clinicians place the cuff on the ankle. This practice has not been previously investigated to determine its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a noninvasive blood pressure cuff on the arm could be replaced by one on the ankle. We monitored 24 patients intraoperatively with two non-invasive blood pressure cuffs, one on the upper arm and one on the ankle. Systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were obtained from each cuff placement at intervals of no shorter than 3 minutes. The time necessary to obtain the measurements and the presence of any artifact were also recorded. A total of 404 pairs of data were obtained and the systolic blood pressure ranged from 82 to 196 mm Hg. The mean and diastolic pressure readings were equivalent between the arm and ankle blood pressure readings. The systolic pressures were not equivalent, reflecting the fact that the ankle systolic blood pressure is physiologically higher than the arm systolic blood pressure. The difference between the times necessary to obtain the readings from arm or ankle was not statistically significant. Eight of the paired readings (2.0%) represented artifact, arbitrarily defined as a difference in mean blood pressure readings of 15 mm Hg between the arm and the ankle. Since the mean blood pressure readings obtained at the arm and at the ankle were statistically equivalent, we concluded that the ankle cuff placement provided a reliable alternative to the placement of the cuff on the arm.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of clinical monitoring and computing\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"167-71\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/a:1016997232542\",\"citationCount\":\"36\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of clinical monitoring and computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016997232542\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical monitoring and computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016997232542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36
摘要
使用自动无创血压(NIBP)装置已成为术中监测血压的常用技术。通常将这些装置放在上臂的袖带位置有时会产生问题。作为替代,许多临床医生将袖带放在脚踝上。这种做法以前没有被调查以确定其有效性。我们研究的目的是确定手臂上的无创血压袖带是否可以用脚踝上的袖带代替。我们对24例患者术中使用两个无创血压袖带进行监测,一个在上臂,一个在脚踝。收缩压、舒张压和平均压的测量间隔不短于3分钟。获得测量值所需的时间和任何人工制品的存在也被记录下来。共获得404对数据,收缩压范围为82 ~ 196 mm Hg,平均和舒张压读数在手臂和脚踝血压读数之间相等。收缩压不相等,反映了踝关节收缩压生理上高于手臂收缩压的事实。从手臂或脚踝获得读数所需的时间之间的差异没有统计学意义。8个配对读数(2.0%)代表伪影,任意定义为手臂和脚踝之间的平均血压读数相差15毫米汞柱。由于在手臂和脚踝处获得的平均血压读数在统计上是相等的,我们得出结论,脚踝袖带的放置提供了一个可靠的替代袖带在手臂上的位置。
Ankle blood pressure measurement, an acceptable alternative to arm measurements.
The use of automatic noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices has become a common technique to monitor blood pressure intraoperatively. The usual cuff placement for these devices on the upper arm sometimes poses problems. As an alternative, many clinicians place the cuff on the ankle. This practice has not been previously investigated to determine its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a noninvasive blood pressure cuff on the arm could be replaced by one on the ankle. We monitored 24 patients intraoperatively with two non-invasive blood pressure cuffs, one on the upper arm and one on the ankle. Systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were obtained from each cuff placement at intervals of no shorter than 3 minutes. The time necessary to obtain the measurements and the presence of any artifact were also recorded. A total of 404 pairs of data were obtained and the systolic blood pressure ranged from 82 to 196 mm Hg. The mean and diastolic pressure readings were equivalent between the arm and ankle blood pressure readings. The systolic pressures were not equivalent, reflecting the fact that the ankle systolic blood pressure is physiologically higher than the arm systolic blood pressure. The difference between the times necessary to obtain the readings from arm or ankle was not statistically significant. Eight of the paired readings (2.0%) represented artifact, arbitrarily defined as a difference in mean blood pressure readings of 15 mm Hg between the arm and the ankle. Since the mean blood pressure readings obtained at the arm and at the ankle were statistically equivalent, we concluded that the ankle cuff placement provided a reliable alternative to the placement of the cuff on the arm.