4.0 Article

Accuracy of the Microlife large-extra large-sized cuff (32-52 cm) coupled to an automatic oscillometric device

期刊

BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 99-102

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e328344c73c

关键词

cuff; device; hypertension; self-measurement; validation

资金

  1. Microlife AG
  2. University of Padova, Padua, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine the accuracy of the large-extra large-sized (L-XL) cuff (32-52 cm) coupled to a Microlife WatchBP Office ABI blood pressure measuring device tested according to the requirements of the International Protocol of the European Society of Hypertension. The L-XL cuff tested in this study is designed to provide accurate blood pressure measurements in patients with large arms (arm circumference >= 32 cm) over a wide range of arm circumferences using a single 145 +/- 1 x 320 +/- 1 mm bladder. The evaluation was made in 33 patients with a mean +/- standard deviation age of 53 +/- 17 years (range: 30-96 years). Their systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 142 +/- 21mmHg (range: 110-180 mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was 87 +/- 14mmHg (range: 62-106mmHg) and arm circumference was 36 +/- 5cm (range: 32-50 cm). Blood pressure measurements were made in the sitting position. The L-XL cuff coupled to the WatchBP Office ABI passed all three phases of the European Society of Hypertension protocol for SBP and DBP. Mean blood pressure differences between device and observer were -1.3 +/- 5.1mmHg for SBP and -1.8 +/- 5.8mmHg for DBP. Similar device-observer differences were observed in patients divided into two subgroups according to whether their arm circumference was above or below the median in the group. These results indicate that the L-XL cuff coupled to the WatchBP Office ABI monitor provides accurate blood pressure readings in patients with large arms over a wide range of arm circumferences. Blood Press Monit 16:99-102 (C) 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据