Quantifying variation in blood pressure measurement through different arm cuffs and estimating its impact on diagnosis of hypertension at community level

B. Mishra, N. Sinha, Habib ur Rehman
{"title":"Quantifying variation in blood pressure measurement through different arm cuffs and estimating its impact on diagnosis of hypertension at community level","authors":"B. Mishra, N. Sinha, Habib ur Rehman","doi":"10.4103/2394-2010.208121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: The aim of this study was to analyze does the difference in blood pressure (BP) measured by different arm cuffs has a clinical/diagnostic implication? Settings and Design: This study was a cross-sectional evaluation of sample rural population from Central India. Materials and Methods: Three different adult arm cuffs were used on a selected 394 rural population from 35 to 65 years age group to estimate BP. Their BP was taken on three different times of the day on three different occasions/days. Statistical Analysis: Basic sociodemographic profiles were expressed in frequency and percentages; relationships of hypertension (HTN) with sociodemographic and other risk factors were calculated by Chi-square test; variability in BP by different arm cuffs was expressed by mean, standard deviations, and ANOVA; and prevalence difference of HTN by different arm cuffs was expressed by frequency, percentage, paired t- test, and Chi-square test. Results and Conclusions: The routinely used small adult cuff was found appropriate in only 3.8% of cases studied, thereby highlighting the prevalence of under cuffing at 96.2%. The mean variation in systolic and diastolic BP recorded by using small adult arm cuff vs. medium arm cuff and small arm cuff vs. large arm cuffs were 5.9mm Hg/4.4mm Hg and 9mmHg/7.2mmHg respectively. These observations were both clinically and statistically significant. Our study reported an overestimation of 4.8% systolic and 15% diastolic HTN by the exclusive use of small adult arm cuff. The prevalence of systolic, diastolic, and both systolic and diastolic HTN in selected age group using the correct arm cuff was found to be 20.8%, 29.6%, and 37.5%, respectively. Thus, arm cuff mismatch was a prevalent cause in misdiagnosis of primary HTN in our study population.","PeriodicalId":16068,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Research and Reviews","volume":"16 1","pages":"71 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2394-2010.208121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to analyze does the difference in blood pressure (BP) measured by different arm cuffs has a clinical/diagnostic implication? Settings and Design: This study was a cross-sectional evaluation of sample rural population from Central India. Materials and Methods: Three different adult arm cuffs were used on a selected 394 rural population from 35 to 65 years age group to estimate BP. Their BP was taken on three different times of the day on three different occasions/days. Statistical Analysis: Basic sociodemographic profiles were expressed in frequency and percentages; relationships of hypertension (HTN) with sociodemographic and other risk factors were calculated by Chi-square test; variability in BP by different arm cuffs was expressed by mean, standard deviations, and ANOVA; and prevalence difference of HTN by different arm cuffs was expressed by frequency, percentage, paired t- test, and Chi-square test. Results and Conclusions: The routinely used small adult cuff was found appropriate in only 3.8% of cases studied, thereby highlighting the prevalence of under cuffing at 96.2%. The mean variation in systolic and diastolic BP recorded by using small adult arm cuff vs. medium arm cuff and small arm cuff vs. large arm cuffs were 5.9mm Hg/4.4mm Hg and 9mmHg/7.2mmHg respectively. These observations were both clinically and statistically significant. Our study reported an overestimation of 4.8% systolic and 15% diastolic HTN by the exclusive use of small adult arm cuff. The prevalence of systolic, diastolic, and both systolic and diastolic HTN in selected age group using the correct arm cuff was found to be 20.8%, 29.6%, and 37.5%, respectively. Thus, arm cuff mismatch was a prevalent cause in misdiagnosis of primary HTN in our study population.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
量化不同袖带测量血压的差异,评估其对社区高血压诊断的影响
目的:本研究的目的是分析不同袖带测量的血压(BP)差异是否具有临床/诊断意义?背景和设计:本研究是对印度中部农村人口样本的横断面评估。材料与方法:选取394名35 ~ 65岁的农村人口,使用三种不同的成人臂套来估计血压。他们的血压是在一天中三个不同的时间、三个不同的场合/天测量的。统计分析:以频率和百分比表示基本的社会人口概况;采用卡方检验计算高血压(HTN)与社会人口学及其他危险因素的关系;通过均值、标准差和方差分析来表达不同袖带对血压的可变性;采用频率、百分比、配对t检验和卡方检验表示不同袖带对HTN的患病率差异。结果与结论:常规使用的成人小袖带仅适用于3.8%的研究病例,因此突出了96.2%的低袖带患病率。使用成人小臂袖与中臂袖、小臂袖与大臂袖记录的收缩压和舒张压平均变化分别为5.9mm Hg/4.4mm Hg和9mmHg/7.2mmHg。这些观察结果具有临床和统计学意义。我们的研究报告了仅使用成人小臂袖带可高估4.8%收缩期和15%舒张期HTN。在使用正确袖带的特定年龄组中,收缩期、舒张期以及收缩期和舒张期HTN的患病率分别为20.8%、29.6%和37.5%。因此,在我们的研究人群中,臂袖不匹配是原发性HTN误诊的一个普遍原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Outcomes of patients with end-stage kidney disease hospitalized with COVID-19: A single-center experience from Eastern India Biological plausibility of spirituality in public health The pH and titration values of commonly used beverages in Trinidad: A cross-sectional study A role of community nurses and challenges faced by them toward providing MCH services in selected blocks in West Bengal: A cross-sectional study Lifestyle changes during the Covid-19 lockdown among young adults in Kerala in terms of physical activity, sleeping habits, and perceived psychological problems: A cross-sectional study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1