Key result
The Takeda Medical TM 2420 ambulatory blood pressure monitor showed mean differences of 1.6 mmHg for systolic and 2.1 mmHg for diastolic readings compared to a random-zero sphygmomanometer.
Why the study?
Does the Takeda Medical TM 2420 ambulatory blood pressure monitor accurately measure blood pressure compared to direct and indirect measurements in human subjects?
Observational (n=85)
Does the Takeda Medical TM 2420 ambulatory blood pressure monitor accurately measure blood pressure compared to direct and indirect measurements in human subjects?
Mean Difference: 1.6
The Takeda Medical TM 2420 ambulatory blood pressure monitor provides acceptable accuracy for clinical use compared to standard indirect and direct measurements, though it is not suitable for exercise stress testing.
May support TM 2420 for routine ambulatory monitoring; leaves open validation during exercise and in broader populations.
Takeda Medical (A & D) TM 2420 is an automatic ambulatory blood pressure monitoring system employing the auscultatory technique. The device was used under stable conditions and compared to readings from the Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer using a double headset stethoscope and a Y-connection. We tested 85 subjects (aged 13-89 years, systolic blood pressure 85-212 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure 40-116 mmHg) and found a difference amounting to 1.6 +/- 6.7 mmHg (mean +/- SD) for systolic and 2.1 +/- 4.5 mmHg for diastolic readings (Hawksley-TM 2420). In 62 subjects a comparison with simultaneous measurement on the opposite arm with the Hawksley manometer showed similar results. When comparing intra-arterial readings from 10 subjects, a difference (intra-arterial-TM 2420) of -1.9 +/- 12.1 mmHg was found for systolic pressures, while the diastolic difference was -10.7 +/- 8.7 mmHg. Twenty-four hour monitoring was performed on 80 subjects; 70 of these yielded usable tracings. The proportion of successful recordings was acceptable, but the device was not suitable for bicycle stress testing. The quality of the accessories provided with the equipment could be improved, but in spite of this the monitoring system was found to be recommendable for clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Høegholm et al. (1992) conducted an observational in Blood pressure monitoring (n=85). Takeda Medical (A & D) TM 2420 ambulatory blood pressure monitor vs. Hawksley random-zero sphygmomanometer was evaluated on Difference in systolic blood pressure readings (MD 1.6 mmHg). The Takeda Medical TM 2420 ambulatory blood pressure monitor showed mean differences of 1.6 mmHg for systolic and 2.1 mmHg for diastolic readings compared to a random-zero sphygmomanometer.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: