Quantitative Assessment of Blood Pressure Measurement Accuracy and Variability from Visual Auscultation Method by Observers without Receiving Medical Training

This study aimed to quantify blood pressure (BP) measurement accuracy and variability with determinations from visualizing Korotkoff sound waveform. Thirty video clips of BP recordings from the educational training database of the British Hypertension Society were converted to Korotkoff sound waveforms. Ten observers without receiving medical training were asked to determine systolic and diastolic BPs (SBP and DBP) from the randomly arranged video clips and Korotkoff sound waveforms using two measurement methods: a) traditional manual auscultatory method of listening for Korotkoff sounds; and b) visual auscultation method by visualising the Korotkoff sound waveform, which was repeated three times on different days, making a total of 6 BP measurements from each observer on each BP recording. The measurement variability was calculated from the standard deviation of the three repeats, and the measurement error was calculated against the reference answers. Statistical analysis showed that, in comparison with the traditional manual auscultatory method, visual auscultation method significantly reduced overall measurement variability from 2.2 to 1.1 mmHg for SBP and from 1.9 to 0.9 mmHg for DBP (both p<0.001). It also showed that BP measurement errors were significant for both techniques (all p<0.01, except DBP from the traditional method). Although significant, the overall mean measurement errors were small, which were -1.5 and -1.2 mmHg for SBP, and -0.7 and 2.6 mmHg for DBP, respectively from the traditional manual auscultatory and visual auscultation methods. In conclusion, the visual auscultation method had the ability to achieve an acceptable degree of BP measurement accuracy, with smaller measurement variability in comparison with the traditional manual auscultatory method

Comparison of two non-invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring techniques in brown bears (Ursus arctos)

Monitoring arterial blood pressure (BP), represents a more accurate evaluation of hemodynamics than heart rate alone and is essential for preventing and treating infra- and post-operative complications in wildlife chemical immobilization.The objectives of the study were to test the correlation between standard oscillometry and Korotkoffs technique in anesthetized free-ranging brown bears in Croatia and Scandinavia and to assess the blood pressure in both locations.Five bears were snared and darted with xylazine and ketamine in Croatia, and 20 bears were darted from a helicopter with medetomidine and tiletamine-zolazepam in Scandinavia. Blood pressure was simultaneously measured with both techniques every 5 minutes. Correlation between techniques, trends of BP variation, and the factors of the capture which likely influenced BP were assessed.Successful measurements of BP were achieved in 93% of all attempts with the Korotkoffs technique but in only 29% of all attempts with oscillometry. The latter method mostly provided lower values of BP compared to Korotkoffs technique in yearlings. Most bears showed a decreasing trend in systolic and mean BP over time, consistent between the two techniques. All bears were hypertensive: the auscultatory technique detected moderate to severe systolic hypertension in 25% and 84% of bears in Croatia and in Scandinavia, respectively, with significantly higher BP in subadults and adults compared to yearlings. Only Korotkoffs method resulted in a reliable and effective tool for BP assessment in brown bears. The anesthetic protocols used in the present study in association with the capture methods produced hypertension in all animals

Respiratory modulation of oscillometric cuff pressure pulses and Korotkoff sounds during clinical blood pressure measurement in healthy adults

BACKGROUND: Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement depends on the reliability of oscillometric cuff pressure pulses (OscP) and Korotkoff sounds (KorS) for automated oscillometric and manual techniques. It has been widely accepted that respiration is one of the main factors affecting BP measurement. However, little is known about how respiration affects the signals from which BP measurement is obtained. The aim was to quantify the modulation effect of respiration on oscillometric pulses and KorS during clinical BP measurement. METHODS: Systolic and diastolic BPs were measured manually from 40 healthy subjects (from 23 to 65 years old) under normal and regular deep breathing. The following signals were digitally recorded during linear cuff deflation: chest motion from a magnetometer to obtain reference respiration, cuff pressure from an electronic pressure sensor to derive OscP, and KorS from a digital stethoscope. The effects of respiration on both OscP and KorS were determined from changes in their amplitude associated with respiration between systole and diastole. These changes were normalized to the mean signal amplitude of OscP and KorS to derive the respiratory modulation depth. Reference respiration frequency, and the frequencies derived from the amplitude modulation of OscP and KorS were also calculated and compared. RESULTS: Respiratory modulation depth was 14 and 40 % for OscP and KorS respectively under normal breathing condition, with significant increases (both p  0.05) during deep breathing, and for the oscillometric signal during normal breathing (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed and quantified the respiratory modulation effect on the oscillometric pulses and KorS during clinical BP measurement, with increased modulation depth under regular deeper breathing

The impact of arm position and pulse pressure on the validation of a wrist-cuff blood pressure measurement device in a high risk population

Despite the increasing popularity of blood pressure (BP) wrist monitors for self-BP measurement at home, device validation and the effect of arm position remains an issue. This study focused on the validation of the Omron HEM-609 wrist BP device, including an evaluation of the impact of arm position and pulse pressure on BP measurement validation. Fifty patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease were selected (age 65 ± 10 years). Each patient had two measurements with a mercury sphygmomanometer and three measurements with the wrist BP device (wrist at the heart level while the horizontal arm supported [HORIZONTAL], hand supported on the opposite shoulder [SHOULDER], and elbow placed on a desk [DESK]), in random order. The achieved systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) wrist-cuff readings were compared to the mercury device and the frequencies of the readings within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg of the gold standard were computed and compared with the British Hypertension Society (BHS) and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) protocols. The results showed while SBP readings with HORIZONTAL and SHOULDER positions were significantly different from the mercury device (mean difference = 7.1 and 13.3 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.05), the DESK position created the closest reading to mercury (mean difference = 3.8, P > 0.1). Approximately 71% of SBP readings with the DESK position were within ±10 mmHg, whereas it was 62.5% and 34% for HORIZONTAL and SHOULDER positions, respectively. Wrist DBP attained category D with BHS criteria with all three arm positions. Bland–Altman plots illustrated that the wrist monitor systematically underestimated SBP and DBP values. However a reading adjustment of 5 and 10 mmHg for SBP and DBP (DESK position) resulted in improvement with 75% and 77% of the readings being within 10 mmHg (grade B), respectively. AAMI criteria were not fulfilled due to heterogeneity. The findings also showed that the mismatch between the mercury and wrist-cuff systolic BP readings was directly associated with pulse pressure. In conclusion the DESK position produces the most accurate readings when compared to the mercury device. Although wrist BP measurement may underestimate BP measured compared to a mercury device, an adjustment by 5 and 10 mmHg for SBP and DBP, respectively, creates a valid result with the DESK position. Nevertheless, considering the observed variations and the possible impact of arterial stiffness, individual clinical validation is recommended

Influence of Age on Upper Arm Cuff Blood Pressure Measurement

Blood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined systematically and was the aim of this study. Cuff BP was compared with invasive aortic BP across decades of age (from 40 to 89 years) using individual-level data from 31 studies (1674 patients undergoing coronary angiography) and 22 different cuff BP devices (19 oscillometric, 1 automated auscultation, 2 mercury sphygmomanometry) from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium. Subjects were aged 64±11 years, and 32% female. Cuff systolic BP overestimated invasive aortic systolic BP in those aged 40 to 49 years, but with each older decade of age, there was a progressive shift toward increasing underestimation of aortic systolic BP (P<0.0001). Conversely, cuff diastolic BP overestimated invasive aortic diastolic BP, and this progressively increased with increasing age (P<0.0001). Thus, there was a progressive increase in cuff pulse pressure underestimation of invasive aortic PP with increasing decades of age (P<0.0001). These age-related trends were observed across all categories of BP control. We conclude that cuff BP as an estimate of aortic BP was substantially influenced by increasing age, thus potentially exposing older people to greater chance for misdiagnosis of the true risk related to BP