Article

Auscultatory versus oscillometric measurement of blood pressure in octogenarians.

Department of Geriatrics, Odense University Hospital , Denmark.
Blood pressure (Impact Factor: 1.26). 05/2012; 21(5):269-72. DOI: 10.3109/08037051.2012.680751
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Abstract Background. Auscultatory measurement using a sphygmomanometer has been the predominant method for clinical estimation of blood pressure, but it is now rapidly being replaced by oscillometric measurement. Objective. To compare blood pressure by auscultatory and oscillometric measurements in patients ≥ 80 years. Method. 100 patients had blood pressure measured by auscultation with a sphygmomanometer and by an electronic device using the oscillometric method. For each patient the mean of two blood pressures with each method measured within 15 min were compared. Results. The mean age of participants was 85.8 years; 55.8% were women. The correlation coefficient for systolic blood pressure was 0.88 and for diastolic 0.79. Differences between auscultatory and oscillometric values were less than 10 mmHg in 70.6% of systolic blood pressures and in 83.2% for diastolic. Arrhythmia and hypertension did not influence the results, and there was no correlation between the magnitude of the differences and the level of blood pressure. Conclusion. Agreement between oscillometric and auscultatory measurements of blood pressure in octogenarians was found to be less than required by validation protocols. However, semi-automatic equipment, which is observer-independent, may be used even in the very elderly, particularly if multiple readings are performed.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
198 Views
  • Source
    BMJ Clinical Research 05/2001; 322(7293):1043-7. · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The benefits of reducing blood pressure on the risks of major cardiovascular disease are well established, but uncertainty remains about the comparative effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens. We aimed to estimate effects of strategies based on different drug classes (angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, calcium antagonists, angiotensin-receptor blockers [ARBs], and diuretics or beta blockers) or those targeting different blood pressure goals, on the risks of major cardiovascular events and death. We did seven sets of prospectively-designed overviews with data from 29 randomised trials (n=162341). The trial eligibility criteria, primary outcomes, and main hypotheses were specified before the result of any contributing trial was known. In placebo-controlled trials the relative risks of total major cardiovascular events were reduced by regimens based on ACE inhibitors (22%; 95% CI 17-27) or calcium antagonists (18%; 5-29). Greater risk reductions were produced by regimens that targeted lower blood pressure goals (15%; 5-24). ARB-based regimens reduced the risks of total major cardiovascular events (10%; 4-17) compared with control regimens. There were no significant differences in total major cardiovascular events between regimens based on ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, or diuretics or beta blockers, although ACE-inhibitor-based regimens reduced blood pressure less. There was evidence of some differences between active regimens in their effects on cause-specific outcomes. For every outcome other than heart failure, the difference between randomised groups in achieved blood pressure reduction was directly related to the observed difference in risk. Treatment with any commonly-used regimen reduces the risk of total major cardiovascular events, and larger reductions in blood pressure produce larger reductions in risk.
    The Lancet 12/2003; 362(9395):1527-35. · 39.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reliable and comparable analysis of risks to health is key for preventing disease and injury. Causal attribution of morbidity and mortality to risk factors has traditionally been in the context of individual risk factors, often in a limited number of settings, restricting comparability. Our aim was to estimate the contributions of selected major risk factors to global and regional burden of disease in a unified framework. For 26 selected risk factors, expert working groups undertook a comprehensive review of published work and other sources--eg, government reports and international databases--to obtain data on the prevalence of risk factor exposure and hazard size for 14 epidemiological regions of the world. Population attributable fractions were estimated by applying the potential impact fraction relation, and applied to the mortality and burden of disease estimates from the global burden of disease (GBD) database. Childhood and maternal underweight (138 million disability adjusted life years [DALY], 9.5%), unsafe sex (92 million DALY, 6.3%), high blood pressure (64 million DALY, 4.4%), tobacco (59 million DALY, 4.1%), and alcohol (58 million DALY, 4.0%) were the leading causes of global burden of disease. In the poorest regions of the world, childhood and maternal underweight, unsafe sex, unsafe water, sanitation, and hygiene, indoor smoke from solid fuels, and various micronutrient deficiencies were major contributors to loss of healthy life. In both developing and developed regions, alcohol, tobacco, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol were major causes of disease burden. Substantial proportions of global disease burden are attributable to these major risks, to an extent greater than previously estimated. Developing countries suffer most or all of the burden due to many of the leading risks. Strategies that target these known risks can provide substantial and underestimated public-health gains.
    The Lancet 12/2002; 360(9343):1347-60. · 39.06 Impact Factor