ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify differences in measurement methods for blood pressure (Direct measurement, HP automatic indirect measurement, and SE 7000 Korean made indirect measurement), and to evaluate the clinical trial of the Korean made automatic indirect blood pressure measurement. MATERIAL & METHODS: From June, 1999 to February, 2000, fifty five consecutive patients were randomized into hypertension group (n=20), normotension group (n=20), and hypotension group (n=15). Measuring blood pressure by indirect methods (HP NIBP M 1008B and SE 7000 NIBP Korean made) was done simultaneously in the same arm with arterial line for direct blood pressure measurement (HP M1006A). The procedures were repeated ten times at intervals of 2 minutes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 8.0 for windows) software package. Values were expressed as means and standard deviation and means were compared using t-test. Statistical significance was considered present with a p value less than 0.05. RESULTS: In the hypertension group and noromotension group, the disparity between HP direct measurement and indirect SE 7000 NIBP did not show any differences compared to the disparity between HP direct measurement and indirect HP NIBP. In the hypotension group, the disparity in the diastolic pressure between HP direct measurement and indirect SE 7000 NIBP was significantly different compared to the disparity between HP direct measurement and indirect HP NIBP (p<0.001), however, disparities in systolic pressure did not showed any differences. CONCLUSION: Direct blood pressure measurement (HP M1006A) can be replaced with indirect blood pressure measurements (HP NIBP M 1008B & SE 7000 NIBP) in normotension and hypertension patients. Korean made indirect measurement was found to be more accurate compared to HP indirect measurement in hypotension patients, but more study is needed.