PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare radial arterial catheter-derived pressure with oscillometric blood pressure in women with severe peripartum hypertension undergoing urgent treatment with intravenous nicardipine at a maternal intensive care unit.
METHODS: We obtained patients\' paired values of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). All of the measurements were divided into four groups based on the levels of SBP and MAP measured using the oscillometric method.
METHODS: We assessed agreements of the paired values using the Bland-Altman method. The clinical relevance of differences between the two methods was assessed by error grid analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 337 paired SBP and DBP values and 305 paired MAP values were obtained for 89 patients. The values of intra-arterial SBP were higher than those of oscillometric SBP. The values of intra-arterial MAP were higher than those of oscillometric MAP except for the women with MAP ≥ 125 mm Hg. Bland - Altman analysis showed acceptable agreement for DBP and MAP measured by intra-arterial method and oscillometric method. Error grid analysis showed the proportions of measurements in risk zones A to E were 83.22%, 16.46%, 0.32%, 0%, and 0% for SBP, and 97.81%, 2.19%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for MAP, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Intra-arterial MAP can be used reliably to monitor the effect of intravenous nicardipine for treating severe hypertension. Intra-arterial SBP may trigger moderate-risk treatment decisions in the women with oscillometric SBP ≤ 160 mm Hg.
METHODS: We obtained patients\' paired values of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). All of the measurements were divided into four groups based on the levels of SBP and MAP measured using the oscillometric method.
METHODS: We assessed agreements of the paired values using the Bland-Altman method. The clinical relevance of differences between the two methods was assessed by error grid analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 337 paired SBP and DBP values and 305 paired MAP values were obtained for 89 patients. The values of intra-arterial SBP were higher than those of oscillometric SBP. The values of intra-arterial MAP were higher than those of oscillometric MAP except for the women with MAP ≥ 125 mm Hg. Bland - Altman analysis showed acceptable agreement for DBP and MAP measured by intra-arterial method and oscillometric method. Error grid analysis showed the proportions of measurements in risk zones A to E were 83.22%, 16.46%, 0.32%, 0%, and 0% for SBP, and 97.81%, 2.19%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for MAP, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Intra-arterial MAP can be used reliably to monitor the effect of intravenous nicardipine for treating severe hypertension. Intra-arterial SBP may trigger moderate-risk treatment decisions in the women with oscillometric SBP ≤ 160 mm Hg.
摘要：
目的：本研究的目的是比较在产妇重症监护病房接受静脉尼卡地平紧急治疗的重度围产期高血压妇女的桡动脉导管源性血压和示波血压。
方法：我们获得了患者的收缩压（SBP）配对值，舒张压（DBP）和平均动脉压（MAP）。根据使用示波法测量的SBP和MAP水平，将所有测量分为四组。
方法：我们使用Bland-Altman方法评估配对值的一致性。通过误差网格分析评估两种方法之间差异的临床相关性。
结果：共获得89例患者的337个配对SBP和DBP值和305个配对MAP值。动脉内SBP的值高于示波SBP的值。除MAP≥125mmHg的女性外，动脉内MAP的值均高于示波MAP。Bland-Altman分析显示，通过动脉内法和示波法测量的DBP和MAP具有可接受的一致性。误差网格分析显示，风险区A至E的测量比例为83.22%，16.46%,0.32%，0%,SBP为0%，和97.81%,2.19%，0%,0%,MAP为0%，分别。
结论：动脉内MAP可以可靠地监测尼卡地平静脉治疗重度高血压的效果。动脉内SBP可能会触发示波SBP≤160mmHg的女性的中度风险治疗决定。
方法：我们获得了患者的收缩压（SBP）配对值，舒张压（DBP）和平均动脉压（MAP）。根据使用示波法测量的SBP和MAP水平，将所有测量分为四组。
方法：我们使用Bland-Altman方法评估配对值的一致性。通过误差网格分析评估两种方法之间差异的临床相关性。
结果：共获得89例患者的337个配对SBP和DBP值和305个配对MAP值。动脉内SBP的值高于示波SBP的值。除MAP≥125mmHg的女性外，动脉内MAP的值均高于示波MAP。Bland-Altman分析显示，通过动脉内法和示波法测量的DBP和MAP具有可接受的一致性。误差网格分析显示，风险区A至E的测量比例为83.22%，16.46%,0.32%，0%,SBP为0%，和97.81%,2.19%，0%,0%,MAP为0%，分别。
结论：动脉内MAP可以可靠地监测尼卡地平静脉治疗重度高血压的效果。动脉内SBP可能会触发示波SBP≤160mmHg的女性的中度风险治疗决定。
