Validation study of the Dinamap ProCare 200 upper arm blood pressure monitor in children and adolescents

• Published in: Clinical and experimental pediatrics Vol. 54; no. 11; pp. 463 - 469
• Main Authors: Lee, Chong Guk, Park, Hyang Mi, Shin, Hye Jung, Moon, Jin Soo, Hong, Yeong Mi, Kim, Nam Soo, Ha, Il Soo, Chang, Myeong Jin, Oh, Kyeong Won
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) Clinical and Experimental Pediatics / Korean Pediatric Society 01.11.2011; The Korean Pediatric Society; Korean Pediatric Society; 대한소아청소년과학회
• Subjects: Accuracy; Age groups; Blood pressure; Children & youth; Dinamap; Hypertension; International protocol; Original; Oscillometric device; Pediatrics; Supervisors; Teenagers; Validation studies; 소아과학; United States > US; Blood pressure; Dinamap; Oscillometric device; International protocol; Validation studies
• ISSN: 1738-1061; 2092-7258; 2092-7258; 2713-4148
• DOI: 10.3345/kjp.2011.54.11.463

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. 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. 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. 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.