Comparative accuracy of two new electronic devices for the noninvasive determination of blood pressure

Recent developments in behavioral approaches to cardiovascular disease have called for physiological monitoring devices that reduce experimenter bias, are easy to operate, can be used ambulatorily, and/or provide ongoing, automated monitoring of pertinent cardiovascular functions--i.e., blood pressure and heart rate. Neither the invasive monitoring (via catheterization) nor the standard auscultatory method of blood pressure determination, however, has these characteristics. In the present study, two new methods/devices--(1) a low-weight, low-cost, battery-operated sphygmomanometer (SM), and (2) a more expensive automated electronic SM with electrical pump-are compared with each other and with the more common auscultatory method and a standard mercury SM. Both new devices were also compared with a standard pulse count. Data were derived from 10 readings of 10 healthy subjects each across the three possible comparisons, thus totaling N = 30. Correlation coefficients and average differences were computed and indicated high intercorrelations (between r = .89 and r = .99) between each pairing of the new electronic devices and the mercury SM. Intercorrelations of blood pressure determination with the two new electronic devices, however, were only moderate. Potential reasons for the variability are discussed, and guidelines for the optimal use of the new, easy-to-operate electronic devices are presented.