Oscillometric measurement of ankle-brachial index in patients with suspected peripheral disease: comparison with Doppler method

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: Purpose was to validate accuracy and reliability of automated oscillometric ankle-brachial (ABI) measurement prospectively against the current gold standard of Doppler-assisted ABI determination. METHODS: Oscillometric ABI was measured in 50 consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease (n = 100 limbs, mean age 65 +/- 6 years, 31 men, 19 diabetics) after both high and low ABI had been determined conventionally by Doppler under standardised conditions. Correlation was assessed by linear regression and Pearson product moment correlation. Degree of inter-modality agreement was quantified by use of Bland and Altman method. RESULTS: Oscillometry was performed significantly faster than Doppler-assisted ABI (3.9 +/- 1.3 vs 11.4 +/- 3.8 minutes, P <0.001). Mean readings were 0.62 +/- 0.25, 0.70 +/- 0.22 and 0.63 +/- 0.39 for low, high and oscillometric ABI, respectively. Correlation between oscillometry and Doppler ABI was good overall (r = 0.76 for both low and high ABI) and excellent in oligo-symptomatic, non-diabetic patients (r = 0.81; 0.07 +/- 0.23); it was, however, limited in diabetic patients and in patients with critical limb ischaemia. In general, oscillometric ABI readings were slightly higher (+0.06), but linear regression analysis showed that correlation was sustained over the whole range of measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Results of automated oscillometric ABI determination correlated well with Doppler-assisted measurements and could be obtained in shorter time. Agreement was particularly high in oligo-symptomatic non-diabetic patients.

Evaluation of high-definition and conventional oscillometric blood pressure measurement in anaesthetised dogs using ACVIM guidelines

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate high-definition and conventional oscillometry in comparison with direct blood pressure measurements in anaesthetised dogs. METHODS: Eight simultaneous readings for systolic, diastolic and mean pressure were obtained directly and with each of two devices in nine anaesthetised dogs. Measurement procedure and validation were based on the 2007 ACVIM guidelines. RESULTS: Sixty-three simultaneous readings were evaluated for each device and direct measurements. The mean differences (bias) to direct values were within 10 mmHg for both devices although bias for systolic and diastolic blood pressures was higher for Memodiagnostic. The standard deviations of differences (precision) were within 15 mmHg for Dinamap but exceeded for Memodiagnostic. Correlation coefficients were higher for Dinamap than Memodiagnostic but both failed to reach a correlation of 0.9. Over 50% of values lay within 10 mmHg of direct measures for both devices, but this percentage was greater for Dinamap than Memodiagnostic. Over 80% of values lay within 20 mmHg of direct measures for Dinamap but not for Memodiagnostic. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both devices failed to meet ACVIM guideline validation. However, Dinamap only failed with regards to correlation. Memodiagnostic failed on several requirements, and based on poor correlation, accuracy and precision, this device cannot be currently recommended for dogs under anaesthesia.

Comparison of arterial blood pressure measurements and hypertension scores obtained by use of three indirect measurement devices in hospitalized dogs

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement of blood pressure measurements and hypertension scores obtained by use of 3 indirect arterial blood pressure measurement devices in hospitalized dogs. Design-Diagnostic test evaluation. ANIMALS: 29 client-owned dogs. PROCEDURES: 5 to 7 consecutive blood pressure readings were obtained from each dog on each of 3 occasions with a Doppler ultrasonic flow detector, a standard oscillometric device (STO), and a high-definition oscillometric device (HDO). RESULTS: When the individual sets of 5 to 7 readings were evaluated, the coefficient of variation for systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) exceeded 20% for 0% (Doppler), 11 % (STO), and 28% (HDO) of the sets of readings. After readings that exceeded a 20% coefficient of variation were discarded, repeatability was within 25 (Doppler), 37 (STO), and 39 (HDO) mm Hg for SAP. Correlation of mean values among the devices was between 0.47 and 0.63. Compared with Doppler readings, STO underestimated and HDO overestimated SAP. Limits of agreement between mean readings of any 2 devices were wide. With the hypertension scale used to score SAP, the intraclass correlation of scores was 0.48. Linear-weighted inter-rater reliability between scores was 0.40 (Doppler vs STO), 0.38 (Doppler vs HDO), and 0.29 (STO vs HDO). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results of this study suggested that no meaningful clinical comparison can be made between blood pressure readings obtained from the same dog with different indirect blood pressure measurement devices.