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.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

A comparison study of brachial blood pressure recorded with Spacelabs 90217A and Mobil-O-Graph NG devices under static and ambulatory conditions

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 30, pages 742–749 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is an important tool in hypertension diagnosis and management. Although several ambulatory devices exist, comparative studies are scarce. This study aimed to compare for the first time brachial blood pressure levels of Spacelabs 90217A and Mobil-O-Graph NG, under static and ambulatory conditions. We examined 40 healthy individuals under static (study A) and ambulatory (study B) conditions. In study A, participants were randomized into two groups that included blood pressure measurements with mercury sphygmomanometer, Spacelabs and Mobil-O-Graph devices with reverse order of recordings. In study B, simultaneous 6-h recordings with both devices were performed with participants randomized in two sequences of device positioning with arm reversal at 3 h. Finally, all the participants filled in a questionnaire rating their overall preference for a device. In study A, brachial systolic blood pressure (117.2±10.3 vs 117.1±9.8 mm Hg, P=0.943) and diastolic blood pressure (73.3±9.4 mm Hg vs 74.1±9.4 mm Hg, P=0.611) did not differ between Spacelabs and Mobil-O-Graph or vs sphygmomanometer (117.8±11.1 mm Hg, P=0.791 vs Spacelabs, P=0.753 vs Mobil-O-Graph). Similarly, no differences were found in ambulatory systolic blood pressure (117.9±11.4 vs 118.3±11.0 mm Hg, P=0.864), diastolic blood pressure (73.7±7.4 vs 74.7±8.0 mm Hg, P=0.571), mean blood pressure and heart rate between Spacelabs and Mobil-O-Graph. Correlation analyses and Bland–Altman plots showed agreement between the monitors. Overall, the participants showed a preference for the Mobil-O-Graph. Spacelabs 90217A and Mobil-O-Graph NG provide practically identical measurements during the static and ambulatory conditions in healthy individuals and can be rather used interchangeably in clinical practice.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J . Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet 2005; 365: 217–223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012; 380 (9859): 2224–2260.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. ESH/ESC Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. Practice guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): ESH/ESC Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. J Hypertens 2013; 31: 1925–1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Omboni S, Parati G, Palatini P, Vanasia A, Muiesan ML, Cuspidi C et al. Reproducibility and clinical value of nocturnal hypotension: prospective evidence from the SAMPLE study. Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Pressure and Lisinopril Evaluation. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 733–738.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mancia G . Short- and long-term blood pressure variability: present and future. Hypertension 2012; 60: 512–517.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stenehjem AE, Os I . Reproducibility of blood pressure variability, white-coat effect and dipping pattern in untreated, uncomplicated and newly diagnosed essential hypertension. Blood Press 2004; 13: 214–224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bliziotis IA, Destounis A, Stergiou GS . Home vs ambulatory and office blood pressure in predicting target organ damage in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens 2012; 30: 1289–1299.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gaborieau V, Delarche N, Gosse P . Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring versus self-measurement of blood pressure at home: correlation with target organ damage. J Hypertens 2008; 26 (10): 1919–1927.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Cesana G, Corrao G, Grassi G et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Circulation 2005; 111: 1777–1783.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dolan E, Stanton A, Thijs L, Hinedi K, Atkins N, McClory S et al. Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure measurement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension 2005; 46 (1): 156–161.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fagard RH, Celis H, Thijs L, Staessen JA, Clement DL, De Buyzere ML et al. Daytime and night-time blood pressure as predictors of death and cause-specific cardiovascular events in hypertension. Hypertension 2008; 51: 55–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Minutolo R, Agarwal R, Borrelli S, Chiodini P, Bellizzi V, Nappi F et al. Prognostic role of ambulatory blood pressure measurement in patients with nondialysis chronic kidney disease. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171: 1090–1098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fagard RH, Thijs L, Staessen JA, Clement DL, De Buyzere ML, De Bacquer DA . Prognostic significance of ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients with history of cardiovascular disease. Blood Press Monit 2008; 13: 325–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sarafidis PA, Rumjon A, Macdougall IC . Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: an invaluable tool comes of age for patients with chronic kidney disease? Am J Nephrol 2012; 35 (3): 238–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lovibond K, Jowett S, Barton P, Caulfield M, Heneghan C, Hobbs FD et al. Cost-effectiveness of options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a modelling study. Lancet 2011; 378 (9798): 1219–1230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sarafidis PA, Georgianos PI, Karpetas A, Bikos A, Korelidou L, Tersi M et al. Evaluation of a novel brachial cuff-based oscillometric method for estimating central systolic pressure in hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 2014; 40 (3): 242–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weiss W, Tölle M, Zidek W, van der Giet M . Validation of the mobil-O-Graph: 24h-blood pressure measurement device. Blood Press Monit 2010; 15 (4): 225–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Franssen PM, Imholz BP . Evaluation of the Mobil-O-Graph new generation ABPM device using the ESH criteria. Blood Press Monit 2010; 15 (4): 229–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Baumgart P, Kamp J . Accuracy of the SpaceLabs Medical 90217 ambulatory blood pressure monitor. Blood Press Monit 1998; 3: 303–307.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Santucci S, Cates EM, James GD, Schussel YR, Steiner D, Pickering TG . A comparison of two ambulatory blood pressure monitors, the Del Mar Avionics Pressurometer IV and the Spacelabs 90202. Am J Hypertens 1989; 2: 797–799.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. O’Shea JC, Murphy MB . Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: which arm? J Hum Hypertens 2000; 14: 227–230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kallem RR, Meyers KE, Sawinski DL, Townsend RR . A comparison of two ambulatory blood pressure monitors worn at the same time. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2013; 15 (5): 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Márquez Contreras E, López de Andrés M, Casado Martínez JJ, Martín de Pablos JL, Moreno García JP, López Zamorano JM . Evaluation of Spacelabs 90207, the noninvasive automatic monitor for ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure. Aten Primaria 1998; 21 (2): 105–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K . Accuracy of the SpaceLabs 90207 determined by the British Hypertension Society protocol. J Hypertens 1991; 9 (6): 573–574.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Parati G, Stergiou G, O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G et al. European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens 2014; 32: 1359–1366.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Westhoff TH, Straub-Hohenbleicher H, Schmidt S, Tölle M, Zidek W, van der Giet M . Convenience of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: comparison of different devices. Blood Press Monit 2005; 10 (5): 239–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nephrology, Hippokration Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    P A Sarafidis

  2. Second Propaedeutic Department of Internal Medicine, Hippokration Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    A A Lazaridis, K P Imprialos, K A Avranas, M N Doumas, V G Athyros & A I Karagiannis

  3. First Department of Medicine, Section of Nephrology and Hypertension, AHEPA University Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece

    P I Georgianos

  4. First Propaedeutic Department of Internal Medicine, Hypertension Unit and Cardiovascular Research Laboratory, Medical School, Laiko Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    A D Protogerou

Authors
  1. P A Sarafidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A A Lazaridis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K P Imprialos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P I Georgianos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K A Avranas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A D Protogerou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M N Doumas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. V G Athyros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. A I Karagiannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P A Sarafidis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sarafidis, P., Lazaridis, A., Imprialos, K. et al. A comparison study of brachial blood pressure recorded with Spacelabs 90217A and Mobil-O-Graph NG devices under static and ambulatory conditions. J Hum Hypertens 30, 742–749 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2016.11

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2016.11

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links