Key result
The PulseCor R6.5 provided more accurate non-invasive assessment of systolic blood pressure in atrial fibrillation patients than automated (p=0.02) and manual (p=0.015) sphygmomanometers.
Why the study?
Does the PulseCor R6.5 device improve the accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurement compared to manual or automated sphygmomanometers in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cross-Sectional (n=10)
Randomized sequence of measurements
No
Does the PulseCor R6.5 device improve the accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurement compared to manual or automated sphygmomanometers in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The PulseCor R6.5 device using suprasystolic algorithms provides more accurate non-invasive systolic blood pressure measurements than standard manual or automated cuffs in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Introduction Blood pressure (BP) is routinely measured by the automated sphygmomanometer. Accurate assessment of BP in patients (pts) with atrial fibrillation (AF) is crucial but impossible due to beat-to-beat variability of stroke volume and significant BP fluctuation preventing consistent assessment of Korotkoff sounds. The PulseCor R6.5 (PC) detects arrhythmia and pulse pressure fluctuations, utilising suprasystolic waveform algorithms to estimate central BP and allows assessment of arterial stiffness, a risk factor for AF. We analysed the accuracy of (i) manual sphygmomanometers, (ii) automated sphygmomanometers and (iii) the PC against continuous invasive BP monitoring via inserted radial cannulae (the gold standard). Methods 10 pts (6 controls in sinus rhythm (SR) and 4 in AF) aged 23–76 (70% male) were identified with arterial lines in situ . Adjustment to atmospheric zero was performed prior to each BP measurement. Non-invasive BP measurements were taken immediately following the invasive BP measurement in a randomised sequence and this was repeated three times in each pt. Results See Table 1. The PC is the only accurate non-invasive assessment of systolic BP in AF pts, better than both automated and manual sphygmomanometers (p=0.02 and 0.015, respectively). In SR the manual sphygmomanometer is more accurate assessing systolic BP than the PC and automated sphygmomanometer (p=0.003 and 0.04, respectively). Conclusions Accurate non-invasive BP assessment in AF is essential and is superior in pts with this arrhythmia using the PC with suprasystolic algorithms but not in SR where the manual sphygmomanometer is best. Abstract 41 Table 1 The accuracy of (i) Manual Sphygmomanometer (ii) Automated Sphygmomanometer (iii) PulseCor R6.5 in Atrial Fibrillation and Sinus Rhythm
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eysenck et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Atrial fibrillation (n=10). PulseCor R6.5 suprasystolic algorithm vs. Manual and automated sphygmomanometers was evaluated on Accuracy of non-invasive assessment of systolic blood pressure in atrial fibrillation compared to invasive monitoring (p=0.02 and 0.015). The PulseCor R6.5 provided more accurate non-invasive assessment of systolic blood pressure in atrial fibrillation patients than automated (p=0.02) and manual (p=0.015) sphygmomanometers.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: