Validation study of the Dinamap ProCare 200 upper arm blood pressure monitor in children and adolescents.
10.3345/kjp.2011.54.11.463
- Author:
Chong Guk LEE
1
;
Hyang Mi PARK
;
Hye Jung SHIN
;
Jin Soo MOON
;
Yeong Mi HONG
;
Nam Soo KIM
;
Il Soo HA
;
Myeong Jin CHANG
;
Kyeong Won OH
Author Information
1. Department of Pediatrics, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang, Korea. chonglee@paik.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Validation Studies ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Blood pressure;
Oscillometric device;
Dinamap;
Validation studies;
International protocol
- MeSH:
Adolescent;
Arm;
Blood Pressure;
Blood Pressure Monitors;
Child;
Humans;
Hypertension;
Organothiophosphorus Compounds;
Reading;
Sphygmomanometers
- From:Korean Journal of Pediatrics
2011;54(11):463-469
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To validate the Dinamap ProCare 200 blood pressure (BP) monitor against a mercury sphygmomanometer in children 7 to 18 years old in accordance with the 2010 International Protocol of European Society of Hypertension (ESH-IP2) and the British Hypertension Society (BHS) protocol. METHODS: Forty-five children were recruited for the study. A validation procedure was performed following the protocol based on the ESH-IP2 and BHS protocols for children and adolescents. Each subject underwent 7 sequential BP measurements alternatively with a mercury sphygmomanometer and the test device by trained nurses. The results were analyzed according to the validation criteria of ESH-IP2. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) difference in the absolute BP values between test device and mercury sphygmomanometer readings was 1.85+/-1.65 mmHg for systolic BP (SBP) and 4.41+/-3.53 mmHg for diastolic BP (DBP). These results fulfilled the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation criterion of a mean+/-SD below 5+/-8 mmHg for both SBP and DBP. The percentages of test device-observer mercury sphygmomanometer BP differences within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg were 96%, 100%, and 100% for SBP, and 69%, 92%, and 100% for DBP, respectively, in the part 1 analysis; both SBP and DBP passed the part 1 criteria. In the part 2 analysis, SBP passed the criteria but DBP failed. CONCLUSION: Although the Dinamap ProCare 200 BP monitor failed an adapted ESH-IP2, SBP passed. When comparing BP readings measured by oscillometers and mercury sphygmomanometers, one has to consider the differences between them, particularly in DBP, because DBP can be underestimated.
