Key result
Auscultatory blood pressure measurement significantly overestimates true diastolic pressure by an average of 7 mm Hg compared to K2 analysis in patients with isolated diastolic hypertension (P<.0004).
Why the study?
Does auscultatory blood pressure measurement overestimate diastolic pressure compared to K2 analysis in subjects with a narrow pulse pressure?
Population
175 subjects, including normotensive, hypertensive, isolated systolic hypertensive, and isolated diastolic…
Comparison
Auscultatory blood pressure measurement vs K2 analysis (an objective noninvasive standard)
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Auscultatory overestimation may artifactually inflate isolated diastolic hypertension diagnoses; leaves open whether K2 analysis should supplant auscultation.
Cross-Sectional (n=175)
Does auscultatory blood pressure measurement overestimate diastolic pressure compared to K2 analysis in subjects with a narrow pulse pressure?
Effect estimate: Mean difference 7 mm Hg
Absolute Event Rate: 94% vs 87%
p-value: p=<.0004
Auscultation frequently overestimates true diastolic pressure by 5 mm Hg or more in patients with a narrow pulse pressure, suggesting isolated diastolic hypertension may sometimes be an artifact of measurement technique.
Blank et al. (1995) conducted a cross-sectional in Isolated diastolic hypertension and narrow pulse pressure (n=175). Auscultatory blood pressure measurement vs. K2 analysis was evaluated on Diastolic blood pressure in the isolated diastolic hypertensive group (Mean difference 7 mm Hg, p=<.0004). Auscultatory blood pressure measurement significantly overestimates true diastolic pressure by an average of 7 mm Hg compared to K2 analysis in patients with isolated diastolic hypertension (P<.0004).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: