Key result
Non-invasive central blood pressure measurement using an oscillometric device was as accurate as invasive radial arterial cannulation, showing no significant difference in systolic blood pressure (126.39 vs 127.43 mmHg, p=0.5).
Why the study?
Accurate blood pressure measurement is essential in hospitalized patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, but the precision of non-invasive central blood pressure measurements in this population remains unclear.
Does non-invasive central blood pressure assessment using an oscillometric device accurately measure blood pressure compared to invasive radial arterial cannulation in pregnant women with hypertensive disorders?
Cross-Sectional (n=110)
No
Does non-invasive central blood pressure assessment using an oscillometric device accurately measure blood pressure compared to invasive radial arterial cannulation in pregnant women with hypertensive disorders?
Non-invasive central blood pressure measurement using an oscillometric device is as accurate as invasive radial arterial cannulation in pregnant women with hypertensive disorders, offering a safe alternative for intensive monitoring.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports non-invasive central BP monitoring in pregnant hypertensives; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) during hospitalization requires an accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement, mainly by invasive intra-arterial reading. Nevertheless, little is known about the precision of non-invasive (NI) central BP measurements in HDP. We aimed to assess the accuracy of NI central BP assessment in comparison to invasive BP measurement in HDP. This cross-sectional study included all patients with HDP that were admitted to university hospitals for high BP control, from December 2018 till December 2019, and 10 healthy matched non-hypertensive controls. Patients were compared for demographic, anthropometric, and echocardiographic data. In all subjects, invasive BP assessment was done by radial arterial cannulation and NI assessment of BP was performed by an oscillometric automated device (Mobil-O-Graph); the comparison was done after initial control of BP. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included and divided into 3 groups (pre-existing hypertension (HTN), gestational HTN, and pre-eclampsia). There was no statistically significant difference between NI central and invasive methods in measuring both systolic BP (SBP) (126.39 ± 14.5 vs 127.43 ± 15.3, p = 0.5) and diastolic BP (82.41 ± 9.0 vs 83.78 ± 8.9, p = 0.14) among the total studied population. A strong positive correlation was found between NI central and invasive SBP (r = 0.96, p < 0.001). HDP was associated with an increase in arterial stiffness, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, and complications. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive measurement of BP using oscillometric automated devices is as accurate as the invasive method, and it is a practical safe method in pregnant women with hypertensive disorders (CTR no. = NCT04303871).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hassan et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (n=110). Non-invasive central blood pressure measurement (Mobil-O-Graph) vs. Invasive blood pressure measurement (radial arterial cannulation) was evaluated on Systolic blood pressure (SBP) (r = 0.968, p=0.5). Non-invasive central blood pressure measurement using an oscillometric device was as accurate as invasive radial arterial cannulation, showing no significant difference in systolic blood pressure (126.39 vs 127.43 mmHg, p=0.5).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: