Ankle blood pressure measurement, an acceptable alternative to arm measurements

Frank E Block, G. Todd Schulte

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The use of automatic noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices has become a common technique to monitor blood pressure intraoperatively. The usual cuff placement for these devices on the upper arm sometimes poses problems. As an alternative, many clinicians place the cuff: on the ankle. This practice has not been previously investigated to determine its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a noninvasive blood pressure cuff on the arm could be replaced by one on the ankle. We monitored 24 patients intraoperatively with two non-invasive blood pressure cuffs, one on the upper arm and one on the ankle. Systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were obtained from each cuff placement at intervals of no shorter than 3 minutes. The time necessary to obtain the measurements and the presence of any artifact were also recorded. A total of 404 pairs of data were obtained and the systolic blood pressure ranged from 82 to 196 mm Hg. The mean and diastolic pressure readings were equivalent between the arm and ankle blood pressure readings. The systolic pressures were not equivalent, reflecting the fact that the ankle systolic blood pressure is physiologically higher than the arm systolic blood pressure. The difference between the times necessary to obtain the readings from arm or ankle was not statistically significant. Eight of the paired readings (2.0%) represented artifact, arbitrarily defined as a difference in mean blood pressure readings of 15 mm Hg between the arm and the ankle. Since the mean blood pressure readings obtained at the arm and at the ankle were statistically equivalent, we concluded that the ankle cuff placement provided a reliable alternative to the placement of the cuff on the arm.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)167-171
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
Volume13
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 29 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ankle
Arm
Blood Pressure
Reading
Artifacts
Blood Pressure Monitors
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Anesthesia
  • Ankle
  • Arm
  • Arterial
  • Blood pressure
  • Diastolic blood pressure
  • Mean blood pressure
  • Physiologic noninvasive blood pressure monitoring pressure
  • Systolic monitoring

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Ankle blood pressure measurement, an acceptable alternative to arm measurements. / Block, Frank E; Todd Schulte, G.

In: International Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, Vol. 13, No. 3, 29.10.1996, p. 167-171.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{17cba9120f7c4cbab0cd38e8b4793332,
title = "Ankle blood pressure measurement, an acceptable alternative to arm measurements",
abstract = "The use of automatic noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices has become a common technique to monitor blood pressure intraoperatively. The usual cuff placement for these devices on the upper arm sometimes poses problems. As an alternative, many clinicians place the cuff: on the ankle. This practice has not been previously investigated to determine its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a noninvasive blood pressure cuff on the arm could be replaced by one on the ankle. We monitored 24 patients intraoperatively with two non-invasive blood pressure cuffs, one on the upper arm and one on the ankle. Systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were obtained from each cuff placement at intervals of no shorter than 3 minutes. The time necessary to obtain the measurements and the presence of any artifact were also recorded. A total of 404 pairs of data were obtained and the systolic blood pressure ranged from 82 to 196 mm Hg. The mean and diastolic pressure readings were equivalent between the arm and ankle blood pressure readings. The systolic pressures were not equivalent, reflecting the fact that the ankle systolic blood pressure is physiologically higher than the arm systolic blood pressure. The difference between the times necessary to obtain the readings from arm or ankle was not statistically significant. Eight of the paired readings (2.0{\%}) represented artifact, arbitrarily defined as a difference in mean blood pressure readings of 15 mm Hg between the arm and the ankle. Since the mean blood pressure readings obtained at the arm and at the ankle were statistically equivalent, we concluded that the ankle cuff placement provided a reliable alternative to the placement of the cuff on the arm.",
keywords = "Anesthesia, Ankle, Arm, Arterial, Blood pressure, Diastolic blood pressure, Mean blood pressure, Physiologic noninvasive blood pressure monitoring pressure, Systolic monitoring",
author = "Block, {Frank E} and {Todd Schulte}, G.",
year = "1996",
month = "10",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1023/A:1016997232542",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "167--171",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing",
issn = "1387-1307",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ankle blood pressure measurement, an acceptable alternative to arm measurements

AU - Block, Frank E

AU - Todd Schulte, G.

PY - 1996/10/29

Y1 - 1996/10/29

N2 - The use of automatic noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices has become a common technique to monitor blood pressure intraoperatively. The usual cuff placement for these devices on the upper arm sometimes poses problems. As an alternative, many clinicians place the cuff: on the ankle. This practice has not been previously investigated to determine its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a noninvasive blood pressure cuff on the arm could be replaced by one on the ankle. We monitored 24 patients intraoperatively with two non-invasive blood pressure cuffs, one on the upper arm and one on the ankle. Systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were obtained from each cuff placement at intervals of no shorter than 3 minutes. The time necessary to obtain the measurements and the presence of any artifact were also recorded. A total of 404 pairs of data were obtained and the systolic blood pressure ranged from 82 to 196 mm Hg. The mean and diastolic pressure readings were equivalent between the arm and ankle blood pressure readings. The systolic pressures were not equivalent, reflecting the fact that the ankle systolic blood pressure is physiologically higher than the arm systolic blood pressure. The difference between the times necessary to obtain the readings from arm or ankle was not statistically significant. Eight of the paired readings (2.0%) represented artifact, arbitrarily defined as a difference in mean blood pressure readings of 15 mm Hg between the arm and the ankle. Since the mean blood pressure readings obtained at the arm and at the ankle were statistically equivalent, we concluded that the ankle cuff placement provided a reliable alternative to the placement of the cuff on the arm.

AB - The use of automatic noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) devices has become a common technique to monitor blood pressure intraoperatively. The usual cuff placement for these devices on the upper arm sometimes poses problems. As an alternative, many clinicians place the cuff: on the ankle. This practice has not been previously investigated to determine its efficacy. The purpose of our study was to determine whether a noninvasive blood pressure cuff on the arm could be replaced by one on the ankle. We monitored 24 patients intraoperatively with two non-invasive blood pressure cuffs, one on the upper arm and one on the ankle. Systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures were obtained from each cuff placement at intervals of no shorter than 3 minutes. The time necessary to obtain the measurements and the presence of any artifact were also recorded. A total of 404 pairs of data were obtained and the systolic blood pressure ranged from 82 to 196 mm Hg. The mean and diastolic pressure readings were equivalent between the arm and ankle blood pressure readings. The systolic pressures were not equivalent, reflecting the fact that the ankle systolic blood pressure is physiologically higher than the arm systolic blood pressure. The difference between the times necessary to obtain the readings from arm or ankle was not statistically significant. Eight of the paired readings (2.0%) represented artifact, arbitrarily defined as a difference in mean blood pressure readings of 15 mm Hg between the arm and the ankle. Since the mean blood pressure readings obtained at the arm and at the ankle were statistically equivalent, we concluded that the ankle cuff placement provided a reliable alternative to the placement of the cuff on the arm.

KW - Anesthesia

KW - Ankle

KW - Arm

KW - Arterial

KW - Blood pressure

KW - Diastolic blood pressure

KW - Mean blood pressure

KW - Physiologic noninvasive blood pressure monitoring pressure

KW - Systolic monitoring

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029965640&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029965640&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1023/A:1016997232542

DO - 10.1023/A:1016997232542

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 167

EP - 171

JO - Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

JF - Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

SN - 1387-1307

IS - 3

ER -