Clinical Autonomic Research

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 161–166 | Cite as

Blood pressure changes associated with tilting in normotensive subjects: Differences in response pattern as measured by oscillometry and auscultation

  • Michael B. Sidery
  • Ian A. Macdonald
Research Paper

Abstract

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 words

Non-invasive blood pressure measurement Tilting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Stevens PM. Cardiovascular dynamics during orthostasis and the influence of intravascular instrumentation.Am J Cardiol 1966;17: 211–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    White WB, Lund-Johansen P, Omvik P. Assessment of four ambulatory blood pressure monitors and measurements by clinicians versus intraarterial blood pressure at rest and during exercise.Am J Cardiol 1990;65: 60–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Armitage P, Fox W, Rose GA, Tinker CM. The variability of measurements of casual blood pressure.Clin Sci 1966;30: 337–344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.Lancet 1986;i: 307–400.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans SJW, Mills P, Dawson J. The end of thep value?Br Heart J 1988;60: 177–180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Imholz, BPM, Wieling W, Langewouters GJ, van Montfrans GA. Continuous finger arterial pressure: utility in the cardiovascular laboratory.Clinical Autonomic Research 1991;1: 43–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Short D. The diastolic dilemma.BMJ 1976;2: 685–686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roberts LN, Smiley JR, Manning GW. A comparison of direct and indirect blood pressure determinations.Circ 1953;8: 232–242.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Gaudemaris R, Folsom AR, Prineas RJ, Luepker RV. The random-zero vs the standard mercury sphygmomanometer: a systematic blood pressure difference.Am J Epidemiol 1985;121: 282–290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 14.
    Rueger MJ. Blood pressure variations in the two arms.Ann Int Med 1951;33: 1023–1027.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hunyor SN, Flynn JM, Cochineas C. Comparison of performances of various sphygmoma nometers with intra-arterial blood pressure readings.BMJ 1978;2: 159–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramsey M. Non-invasive automatic determination of mean arterial pressure.Med Biol Eng Comput 1979;17: 11–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Woittiez AJJ, Wenting GJ, van den Meiracker AH, van Eck HRJ, Man in'T Veld AJ, Zantvoort FA, Schalekamp MADH. Chronic effect of Ketanserin in mild to moderate essential hypertension.Hypertension 1986;8: 167–173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hainsworth R, AI-Shamma YMH. Cardiovascular responses to upright tilting in healthy subjects.Clin Sci 1988;74: 17–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tuckman J, Shillingworth J. Effect of different degrees of tilt on cardiac output, heart rate and blood pressure in normal man.Brit Heart J 1966;28: 32–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kroeker EJ, Woods EH. Comparison of simultaneously recorded central and peripheral arterial pressure pulses during rest, exercise and tilted positions in man.Circ Res 1955;3: 623–632.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael B. Sidery
    • 1
  • Ian A. Macdonald
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physiology and PharmacologyUniversity of Nottingham Medical SchoolNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations