Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Shows poor agreement between oscillometric and invasive blood pressure in dogs, indicating the device does not meet validation standards for clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: To compare results of a commercially available device for oscillometrically measured blood pressure (OBP) with invasively measured blood pressure (IBP) in awake and anesthetized dogs. ANIMALS: 19 adult dogs (mean ± SD body weight, 17.8 ± 7.5 kg). PROCEDURES: Blood pressures were measured in dogs while they were awake and anesthetized with isoflurane. The OBP was recorded on a thoracic limb, and IBP was simultaneously recorded from the median caudal artery. Agreement between OBP and IBP was evaluated with the Bland-Altman method. Guidelines of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) were used for validation of the oscillometric device. RESULTS: In awake dogs, mean bias of the oscillometric device was -11.12 mm Hg (95% limits of agreement [LOA], -61.14 to 38.90 mm Hg) for systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP), 9.39 mm Hg (LOA, -28.26 to 47.04 mm Hg) for diastolic arterial blood pressure (DAP), and -0.85 mm Hg (LOA, -40.54 to 38.84 mm Hg) for mean arterial blood pressure (MAP). In anesthetized dogs, mean bias was -12.27 mm Hg (LOA, -47.36 to 22.82 mm Hg) for SAP, -3.92 mm Hg (LOA, -25.28 to 17.44 mm Hg) for DAP, and -7.89 mm Hg (LOA, -32.31 to 16.53 mm Hg) for MAP. The oscillometric device did not fulfill ACVIM guidelines for the validation of such devices. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Agreement between OBP and IBP results for awake and anesthetized dogs was poor. The oscillometric blood pressure device did not fulfill ACVIM guidelines for validation. Therefore, clinical use of this device cannot be recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cremer et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: