Blood pressure changes associated with tilting in normotensive subjects: Differences in response pattern as measured by oscillometry and auscultation
- 17 Downloads
Three non-invasive instruments were used to measure blood pressure in the supine position and on tilting—a conventional and a random-zero sphygmomanometer, and an oscillometric device (Accutorr 1A). Twenty normotensives volunteered for the study. There was no statistically significant difference in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure measured by the conventional and random-zero sphygmomanometers in the supine position. There was a difference between these recordings and those of the Accutorr, with the Accutorr giving higher readings of systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001, analysis of variance, 95% confidence interval of the difference between the Accutorr and the random-zero was 5.1–15.7 mmHg) and lower readings of diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.0001, analysis of variance, 95% confidence interval of the difference between the Accutorr and the random-zero was −12.2–−2.2 mmHg). On tilting, the Accutorr showed an increase in systolic blood pressure while the other two machines did not (p < 0.01, analysis of variance). By contrast, the Accutorr detected a smaller rise in diastolic blood pressure than with the other two instruments (p < 0.05, analysis of variance). The difference between blood pressure measurements made in the supine position by the two different techniques, auscultation and oscillometry, might be expected. However, the two different techniques do not detect the same blood pressure responses to a change in posture.
Key wordsNon-invasive blood pressure measurement Tilting
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Bordley J, Connor CAR, Hamilton WF, Ken WJ, Wiggers CJ. Recommendations for human blood pressure determination by sphygmomanometers.Circ 1951;4: 503–509.Google Scholar
- 5.Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.Lancet 1986;i: 307–400.Google Scholar
- 7.O'Brien E, Petrie J, Littler W, de Swiet M, Padfield PL, O'Malley K, Jamieson M, Altman D, Bland M, Atkins N. The British Hypertension Society protocol for the evaluation of automated and semi-automated blood pressure measuring devices with special reference to ambulatory systems.J Hypertens 1990;8: 607–619.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.van Bergen FH, Weatherhead DS, Treloar AE, Dobkin AB, Buckley JJ. Comparison of indirect and direct methods of measuring arterial blood pressure.Circ 1954;10: 481–490.Google Scholar
- 11.Roberts LN, Smiley JR, Manning GW. A comparison of direct and indirect blood pressure determinations.Circ 1953;8: 232–242.Google Scholar
- 13.Labarth DR, Hawkins CM, Remington PD. Evaluation of the performance of selected devices for measuring blood pressure.Am J Cardiot 1973;32: 546–553.Google Scholar
- 14.Rueger MJ. Blood pressure variations in the two arms.Ann Int Med 1951;33: 1023–1027.Google Scholar
- 17.van Egmond J, Hasenbos M, Crul JF. Invasive and non-invasive measurement of arterial pressure.Br J Anaestb 1985;57: 434–444.Google Scholar
- 22.Berry MR. The mechanism of prevention of impairment of auscultatory sounds during detection of blood pressure of standing patients.Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clinic 1940;15: 699 (reproduced by Bordley et al. Circ 1951;4: 503–509).Google Scholar