Key result
NIBP significantly overestimates intra-arterial pressure, with discrepancy widening with advancing age.
Why the study?
The accuracy of non-invasive blood pressure measurement compared to invasive intra-arterial pressure recording across different age groups remains unclear.
Does non-invasive blood pressure recording accurately measure blood pressure compared to invasive intra-arterial pressure recording in patients aged 30-75 years undergoing coronary angiography?
Cross-Sectional (n=98)
Does non-invasive blood pressure recording accurately measure blood pressure compared to invasive intra-arterial pressure recording in patients aged 30-75 years undergoing coronary angiography?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Non-invasive blood pressure measurements tend to overestimate true intra-arterial pressure, and this discrepancy increases with advancing age.
Background: Even after 115 years after the invention of Riva-Rocci Sphygmomanometer, the technique which shows the maximal accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurement remains elusive. Currently, non-invasive BP (NIBP) recording is commonly done worldwide. Yet, intra-arterial pressure (IAP) recording gives a beat to beat accurate recording of ones BP. Aims and Objectives: The aims of this study are as follows: (1) To compare NIBP with IAP in various age groups and (2) to study the influence of age in the accuracy of NIBP recording. Materials and Methods: A total of 98 patients aged 3075 years posted for a coronary angiogram (CAG) were recruited for the study and divided into 3 groups based on age (Group I 3045, Group II 4660, and Group III 6175). Two sets of NIBP and corresponding IAP (radial and aortic arterial pressures) were recorded during CAG. Paired t-test to compare the NIBP with corresponding IAP and ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni to check the influence of age with the accuracy of recording were done. Results: NIBP differed significantly with the corresponding IAP when analyzed by paired t-test (P < 0.0001). Multiple comparisons between three age groups and the pressure difference by ANOVA were done. Age Groups I and III (3045 years and 6175 years) both systolic NIBPI versus radial artery pressure (P = 0.013) as well as diastolic NIBP II versus arterial blood pressure (ABP) (P = 0.053) pressure comparison were widely different. Age Groups II (4660 years) and III (6170 years) varied in the diastolic NIBPII versus ABP comparison with P = 0.050. The results thus indicate that there is discrepancy of manual BP versus IAP with an increasing trend with the advancement of age. Conclusion: Thus, the results indicate that there is a discrepancy of NIBP versus IAP with NIBP showing higher values which widens with advancing age. [Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2018; 8(3.000): 436-440]
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parthasarathy et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Patients undergoing coronary angiogram (n=98). Non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) recording vs. Intra-arterial pressure (IAP) recording was evaluated on Difference between NIBP and corresponding IAP (p=<0.0001). Non-invasive blood pressure recording differed significantly from intra-arterial pressure (P<0.0001), with NIBP showing higher values and the discrepancy widening with advancing age.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: