Searching the Resource Information Network

Our searching services are busy right now. Please try again later

  • Register
X
Forgot Password

If you have forgotten your password you can enter your email here and get a temporary password sent to your email.

X

Leaving Community

Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.

No
Yes

Does the position or contact pressure of the stethoscope make any difference to clinical blood pressure measurements: an observational study.

Fan Pan | Dingchang Zheng | Peiyu He | Alan Murray
Medicine | 2014

This study aimed to investigate the effect of stethoscope position and contact pressure on auscultatory blood pressure (BP) measurement. Thirty healthy subjects were studied. Two identical stethoscopes (one under the cuff, the other outside the cuff) were used to simultaneously and digitally record 2 channels of Korotkoff sounds during linear cuff pressure deflation. For each subject, 3 measurements with different contact pressures (0, 50, and 100 mm Hg) on the stethoscope outside the cuff were each recorded at 3 repeat sessions. The Korotkoff sounds were replayed twice on separate days to each of 2 experienced listeners to determine systolic and diastolic BPs (SBP and DBP). Variance analysis was performed to study the measurement repeatability and the effect of stethoscope position and contact pressure on BPs. There was no significant BP difference between the 3 repeat sessions, between the 2 determinations from each listener, between the 2 listeners and between the 3 stethoscope contact pressures (all P > 0.06). There was no significant SBP difference between the 2 stethoscope positions at the 2 lower stethoscope pressures (P = 0.23 and 0.45), but there was a small (0.4 mm Hg, clinically unimportant) significant difference (P = 0.005) at the highest stethoscope pressure. The key result was that, DBP from the stethoscope under the cuff was significantly lower than that from outside the cuff by 2.8 mm Hg (P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval -3.5 to -2.1 mm Hg). Since it is known that the traditional Korotkoff sound method, with the stethoscope outside the cuff, tends to give a higher DBP than the true intra-arterial pressure, this study could suggest that the stethoscope position under the cuff, and closer to the arterial occlusion, might yield measurements closer to the actual invasive DBP.

Pubmed ID: 25546675

Research resources used in this publication

None found

Additional research tools detected in this publication

Antibodies used in this publication

None found

Associated grants

None

Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.

This is a list of tools and resources that we have found mentioned in this publication.


American Heart Association (tool)

RRID:SCR_007210

The American Heart Association (AHA) publishes medical scientific statements on various cardiovascular disease and stroke topics. AHA volunteer scientists and healthcare professionals write the papers. The statements are supported by scientific studies published in recognized journals and have a rigorous review and approval process. Scientific statements generally include a review of data available on a specific subject, an evaluation on its relationship to overall cardiovascular disease science, and often an American Heart Association position on the basis of that evaluation. The American Heart Association sponsors accredited scientific conferences and professional development seminars to disseminate new and emerging scientific knowledge and stimulate discussion on future research and the application of knowledge. Keywords: Heart, Cardiovascular, Disease, Stroke, Volunteer, Scientist, Healthcare, Development, Knowledge,

View all literature mentions