Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To compare non-invasive (Doppler and Oscillometric) and invasive (indwelling umbilical arterial catheter, UAC) methods for measuring blood pressure in extremely preterm neonates.</p> Methods <p>Neonates &lt; 28&#xa0;weeks gestation were recruited if UAC was inserted as part of their clinical care. Blood pressure measured 4–6 hourly by Oscillometric and Doppler methods was compared with invasive method (10–15 readings/baby).</p> Results <p>438 blood pressure recordings were taken from 11 neonates. Compared to invasive method, non-invasive methods underestimated (<i>P</i> = 0.630) and overestimated (<i>P</i> = 0.431 for &gt; 10% overestimation, <i>P</i> = 0.960 for &gt; 20% overestimation) blood pressure. The frequency of blood pressure being within 10% of UAC reading was higher with the Oscillometric method compared to Doppler (41% vs 17%).</p> Conclusions <p>Compared to invasive arterial recording, non-invasive methods underestimated as well as overestimated blood pressure in extremely preterm neonates. Oscillometric methods are more reliable compared to Doppler methods.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Measurement in Extremely Preterm Neonates: Comparative Analysis of Different Methods

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月1日

查看全文
  • Shalabh Garg,
  • Adnan Zafar

摘要

Objectives

To compare non-invasive (Doppler and Oscillometric) and invasive (indwelling umbilical arterial catheter, UAC) methods for measuring blood pressure in extremely preterm neonates.

Methods

Neonates < 28 weeks gestation were recruited if UAC was inserted as part of their clinical care. Blood pressure measured 4–6 hourly by Oscillometric and Doppler methods was compared with invasive method (10–15 readings/baby).

Results

438 blood pressure recordings were taken from 11 neonates. Compared to invasive method, non-invasive methods underestimated (P = 0.630) and overestimated (P = 0.431 for > 10% overestimation, P = 0.960 for > 20% overestimation) blood pressure. The frequency of blood pressure being within 10% of UAC reading was higher with the Oscillometric method compared to Doppler (41% vs 17%).

Conclusions

Compared to invasive arterial recording, non-invasive methods underestimated as well as overestimated blood pressure in extremely preterm neonates. Oscillometric methods are more reliable compared to Doppler methods.