Document Detail


A comparison of two sphygmomanometers that may replace the traditional mercury column in the healthcare workplace.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  17303984     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: Alternatives to the traditional, but possibly toxic mercury sphygmomanometer are needed for accurate blood pressure measurements in the medical workplace. We compared the performance of two commercially available potential replacements for the mercury column; an anaeroid manometer (Baum & Co) and an automated oscillometric device (Omron HEM-907), using the mercury sphygmomanometer as a standard, in the same participants. METHODS: Two independent observers performed simultaneous triplicate blood pressure readings for 512 participants. The average difference and standard deviation of the difference comparing the mercury column vs. the anaeroid and automated devices were calculated for each of the three paired systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings. RESULTS: Both devices met the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criteria for sphygmomanometers (<5 mmHg average difference, <8 mmHg standard deviation of the difference) for all three readings. Compared with the mercury standard, there were no significant differences (by paired t-test) with the anaeroid device (-0.83/0.73 mmHg, P=0.25/0.09), but the automated device slightly overestimated systolic blood pressure (by 2.12 mmHg, P=0.002) and underestimated diastolic blood pressure (by 2.36 mmHg, P=0.0002). The first reading was significantly higher and had a larger standard deviation than the second or third readings across all manometers. CONCLUSIONS: The automated device performed as well as an anaeroid manometer operated by well trained, experienced observers. The two alternative devices to the mercury sphygmomanometer examined in this study may be potential replacement devices for blood pressure measurement.
Authors:
William J Elliott; Patrick E Young; Laura DeVivo; Jeffrey Feldstein; Henry R Black
Related Documents :
7318344 - Accuracy of the london school of hygiene and remler m2000 sphygmomanometers.
3256414 - Postprandial haemodynamic changes: a source of bias in cardiovascular research affected...
1854554 - Evaluation of extracorporeal perfusion catheters using a standardized measurement techn...
8267944 - Accuracy and reproducibility of 30 devices for self-measurement of arterial blood press...
21119534 - Hypertension and migraine comorbidity: prevalence and risk of cerebrovascular events: e...
18082194 - Pubo-urethral ligament transection causes stress urinary incontinence in the female rat...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Blood pressure monitoring     Volume:  12     ISSN:  1359-5237     ISO Abbreviation:  Blood Press Monit     Publication Date:  2007 Feb 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2007-02-16     Completed Date:  2007-04-27     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9606438     Medline TA:  Blood Press Monit     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  23-8     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Preventive Medicine, RUSH Medical College, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. welliott@rush.edu
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Automation
Blood Pressure Determination / methods*
Humans
Hypertension / diagnosis
Manometry
Mercury / adverse effects
Oscillometry
Sphygmomanometers / standards*
Chemical
Reg. No./Substance:
7439-97-6/Mercury

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  The effects of anatomical structures on adult forearm and upper arm noninvasive blood pressures.
Next Document:  Validation of Heine Gamma G7 (G5) and XXL-LF aneroid devices for blood pressure measurement.