Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A perfect replacement for the mercury sphygmomanometer: the case of the hybrid blood pressure monitor

Abstract

This study validated a hybrid mercury-free device as a replacement of the mercury sphygmomanometer for professional use, and also as a standard for future validations. A validation study was performed according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol 2010 (ESH-IP) in 33 subjects using simultaneous blood pressure (BP) measurements. A total of six BP measurements were taken per participant simultaneously by a supervisor (S; hybrid auscultatory device Nissei DM3000) and two observers (A and B; mercury sphygmomanometers). ESH-IP analysis (99 BP readings): mean device–observer systolic/diastolic BP difference 0.2±2.0/0.1±2.0 mm Hg; systolic BP differences 5/10/15 mm Hg in 97/99/99 readings, respectively (diastolic 98/99/99). All 33 subjects had 2 of 3 BP differences 5 mm Hg and none without a difference 5 mm Hg. Further analysis (198 BP readings): mean differences S–A 0.1±2.4/0.2±2.4 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic), S–B 0.3±2.1/0.2±2.2, A–B 0.2±2.4/0.0±2.3; differences 2 mm Hg S–A in 88/84% (systolic/diastolic), S–B 87/85%, A–B 87/86% and 4 mm Hg S–A 95/96%, S–B 95/96%, A–B 95/98%. In conclusion, a hybrid mercury-free auscultatory BP monitor comfortably passed the ESH-IP 2010 requirements and has the same level of accuracy as the mercury sphygmomanometer. This device appears to be a reliable alternative to the mercury sphygmomanometer for professional use and also as a standard for future validations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1

References

  1. O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Imai Y, Mallion JM, Mancia G et al. European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 821–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, Falkner BE, Graves J, Hill MN et al. Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: Part 1: Blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research. Hypertension 2005; 45: 142–161.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Brien E, Pickering T, Asmar R, Myers M, Parati G, Staessen J et al. Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension. Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension. International Protocol for validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults. Blood Press Monit 2002; 7: 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Brien E, Atkins N, Stergiou G, Karpettas N, Parati G, Asmar R et al. Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension. European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults. Blood Press Monit 2010; 15: 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Brien E, Petrie J, Littler W, de Swiet M, Padfield PL, O′Malley K et al. The British Hypertension Society protocol for the evaluation of automated and semi-automated blood pressure measuring devices with special reference to ambulatory systems. J Hypertens 1990; 8: 607–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Clinical validation of automated measurement type. Non-invasive sphygmomanometers—Part 2. American National Standards Institute, Inc. ANSI/AAMI/ISO 81060-2, 2009. http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FAAMI%2FISO+81060-2%3A2009.(accessed 12 March 2011).

  7. Mercury in measuring devices (amendment of Council Directive 76/769/EEC). Directive 2007/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 September 2007 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/markrestr/amendments_en.htm(accessed 12 March 2011).

  8. Mercury Sphygmomanometers in Healthcare and the Feasibility of Alternatives. European Commission, Directorate General for ‘Health and Consumers’. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/scenihr_opinions_en.htm#2(accessed 12 March 2011).

  9. Pickering TG . What will replace the mercury sphygmomanometer? Blood Press Monit 2003; 8: 23–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pickering T . The case for a hybrid sphygmomanometer. Blood Press Monit 2001; 6: 177–179.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Myers MG, Godwin M . Automated measurement of blood pressure in routine clinical practice. J Clin Hypertens 2007; 9: 267–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stergiou GS . Office blood pressure measurement with electronic devices: has the time come? Am J Hypertens 2008; 21: 246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stergiou G, Karpettas N, Atkins N, O’Brien E . Impact of applying the more stringent validation criteria of the revised European Society of Hypertension International Protocol 2010 on previous validation studies. Blood Press Monit 2011; 16: 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pruijm MT, Wuerzner G, Glatz N, Alwan H, Ponte B, Ackermann D et al. A new technique for simultaneous validation of two manual nonmercury auscultatory sphygmomanometers (A&D UM-101 and Accoson Greenlight 300) based on the International protocol. Blood Press Monit 2010; 15: 322–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Graves JW, Tibor M, Murtagh B, Klein L, Sheps SG . The Accoson Greenlight 300, the first non-automated mercury-free blood pressure measurement device to pass the International Protocol for blood pressure measuring devices in adults. Blood Press Monit 2004; 9: 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stergiou GS, Giovas PP, Gkinos CP, Tzamouranis DG . Validation of the A&D UM-101 professional hybrid device for office blood pressure measurement according to the International Protocol. Blood Press Monit 2008; 13: 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Asmar R, Khabouth J, Mattar J, Pecchioli V, Germano G . Validation of three professional devices measuring office blood pressure according to three different methods: the Omron BP10, the Omron HBP T105 and the Pic Indolor Professional. J Hypertens 2010; 28: 452–458.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tasker F, De Greeff A, Shennan AH . Development and validation of a blinded hybrid device according to the European Hypertension Society protocol: Nissei DM-3000. J Hum Hypertens 2010; 24: 609–616.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. dabl® Educational Trust. Devices for Blood Pressure Measurement. http://www.dableducational.org(accessed 12 March 2011).

  20. Stergiou GS, Karpettas N, Atkins N, O’Brien E . European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for the validation of blood pressure monitors: a critical review of its application and rationale for revision. Blood Press Monit 2010; 15: 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by the Hypertension Center, Third University Department of Medicine, Athens, Greece. The test device was provided by the local distributor of the Nissei company with a written declaration by the manufacturer that this was a standard production model. The manufacturer and the local distributor were not aware neither involved in any way in the design and execution of this study, the data analysis and the preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G S Stergiou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stergiou, G., Karpettas, N., Kollias, A. et al. A perfect replacement for the mercury sphygmomanometer: the case of the hybrid blood pressure monitor. J Hum Hypertens 26, 220–227 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2011.77

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2011.77

Keywords

  • mercury sphygmomanometer
  • office blood pressure measurement
  • hybrid blood pressure monitor
  • validation
  • international protocol

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links