The pressure difference between cylindrical and tronco-conical cuffs was 13.5 mmHg in adults with 43-50 cm arms, significantly larger than in those with smaller arms (P<0.001).
Cross-Sectional (n=132)
Does a tronco-conical cuff compared to a cylindrical cuff improve accurate pressure transmission in adults with arm circumference between 43 and 50 cm?
132 adults with varying upper arm circumferences (<37 cm to 50 cm) evaluated for pressure differences between cylindrical and tronco-conical blood pressure cuffs.
Tronco-conical blood pressure cuff
Cylindrical blood pressure cuff
Pressure transmitted to the arm under the two cuffs measured using a paper-thin pressure sensorsurrogate
In individuals with an arm circumference between 43 and 50 cm, a tronco-conical cuff with an 84-85° slant angle provides more accurate pressure transmission than a cylindrical cuff and should be used as the reference for blood pressure device validation.
Mean Difference: 13.5
p-value: p=<0.001
OBJECTIVE: Recommendations about the dimensions of the reference cuff for device validations in people with arm size >42 cm are still unavailable. The aim of this study was to identify the criteria for an appropriate reference cuff for validation studies in people with upper arm circumference between 43 and 50 cm. METHODS: In 20 adults with upper arm circumference between 43 and 50 cm (X-large group), 34 subjects with arm circumference between 37 and 42 cm and 78 subjects with arm circumference <37 cm cylindrical and tronco-conical cuffs were compared. In all participants, the pressure transmitted to the arm under the two cuffs was measured using a paper-thin pressure sensor. RESULTS: In the X-large group, all participants had an arm slant angle <86.0°. In this group, the difference between the pressure detected on the arm surface with the sensor using the cylindrical versus the tronco-conical cuff (13.5 mmHg) was larger than in the group with an arm circumference of 37-to 42 cm and the group with a circumference <37 cm (3.7 and 0.6 mmHg, respectively, P < 0.001 versus both). In the whole sample, the between-cuff pressure difference was proportional to the conical shape of the arm ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in people with arm size between 43 and 50 cm the reference cuff for validation studies should have a conical shape with an 84-85° slant angle. To comply with current guidelines, an 18.5 × 37.0 cm bladder should be used which would allow proper cuffing in the large majority of subjects.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Paolo Palatini
Vascular Medicine
Claudio Fania
University of Padua
Elisabetta Benetti
International Renal Research Institute of Vicenza
Blood Pressure Monitoring
University of Padua
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Palatini et al. (Tue,) conducted a cross-sectional in Blood pressure measurement (n=132). Tronco-conical cuff vs. Cylindrical cuff was evaluated on Difference between the pressure detected on the arm surface using the cylindrical versus the tronco-conical cuff (MD 13.5, p=<0.001). The pressure difference between cylindrical and tronco-conical cuffs was 13.5 mmHg in adults with 43-50 cm arms, significantly larger than in those with smaller arms (P<0.001).
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a21591bf69db56553c3e236 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mbp.0000000000000630