Comparison of automated oscillometric versus auscultatory blood pressure measurement.

Most clinical offices rely on automated oscillometric devices to measure blood pressure (BP), but the accuracy of this technique versus auscultatory determination using a mercury manometer is controversial. To assess the accuracy of automated oscillometric readings, BP was measured from the same site and cuff, in 337 consecutive patients seen in a routine cardiology office, using a simultaneous connection to an automated oscillometric and a mercury manometer technique. The mean systolic BP (133 +/- 20 mm Hg) and diastolic BP (72 +/- 11 mm Hg) were significantly greater using the mercury manometer than the automated oscillometric technique (systolic 131 +/- 18 and diastolic 70 +/- 12 mm Hg, p <0.0001). Discrepancies (almost always lower oscillometric and greater mercury manometer) in systolic BP were seen in 22% of all patients. Discrepancies in diastolic BP were seen in 20% of all patients. The mean of the discrepancy between the 2 techniques was 1.95 +/- 5 mm Hg (range 1 to 26) for systolic BP and 1.3 +/- 4 mm Hg (range 1 to 25) for diastolic BP. The discrepancies were greater in patients >65 years. In conclusion, the mercury manometer technique resulted in consistently greater BP values than oscillometric devices. These findings have important clinical implications, including the concept that patients whose BP appears to be under control using the oscillometric technique might not be at their goal BP and might have been undertreated.

[1]  F. Turnbull Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials , 2003, The Lancet.

[2]  E. Verrij,et al.  Reintroduction of Riva-Rocci measurements to determine systolic blood pressure? , 2008, The Netherlands journal of medicine.

[3]  Factores que influyen en la diferencia de medida de presión arterial entre el método auscultatorio y el oscilométrico , 2006 .

[4]  B. Neal The Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration , 2001 .

[5]  G Chatellier,et al.  Is "isolated home" hypertension as opposed to "isolated office" hypertension a sign of greater cardiovascular risk? , 2001, Archives of internal medicine.

[6]  J. Penny,et al.  Blood pressure measurement in severe pre-eclampsia , 1997, The Lancet.

[7]  Claire Rickard,et al.  Automated versus manual blood pressure measurement: a randomized crossover trial. , 2008, International journal of nursing practice.

[8]  J. Mcclure,et al.  A comparison of non-invasive methods of blood pressure measurement in normotensive and hypertensive pregnant women. , 1996, International journal of obstetric anesthesia.

[9]  Amy Schweinle,et al.  Accuracy of automated blood pressure monitors. , 2008, Journal of dental hygiene : JDH.

[10]  G. Viberti,et al.  Comparison of blood pressure measurement methods in adult diabetics , 1997, The Lancet.

[11]  F. V. van Ittersum,et al.  Determinants of the limits of agreement between the sphygmomanometer and the SpaceLabs 90207 device for blood pressure measurement in healthy volunteers and insulin‐dependent diabetic patients , 1998, Journal of hypertension.

[12]  J. Wetzels,et al.  Oscillometric blood pressure measurements: differences between measured and calculated mean arterial pressure. , 2008, The Netherlands journal of medicine.

[13]  G. V. van Montfrans,et al.  Oscillometric blood pressure measurement: progress and problems , 2001, Blood pressure monitoring.

[14]  A. Hofman,et al.  Arterial Stiffness as Underlying Mechanism of Disagreement Between an Oscillometric Blood Pressure Monitor and a Sphygmomanometer , 2000, Hypertension.

[15]  P. Gosse,et al.  Components of arterial stiffness in a population of 65-year-old subjects: PROOF study , 2008, Journal of hypertension.

[16]  J. Bander,et al.  Arterial blood pressure monitoring in overweight critically ill patients: invasive or noninvasive? , 2006, Critical care.