• Morena B Wernick, Robert M Höpfner, Thierry Francey, and Judith Howard.
• Small Animal Clinic, Department of Small Animal Internal Medicine, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, 3001 Bern, Switzerland.
• J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2012 Apr 15; 240 (8): 962-8.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the agreement of blood pressure measurements and hypertension scores obtained by use of 3 indirect arterial blood pressure measurement devices in hospitalized dogs. Design-Diagnostic test evaluation.Animals29 client-owned dogs.Procedures5 to 7 consecutive blood pressure readings were obtained from each dog on each of 3 occasions with a Doppler ultrasonic flow detector, a standard oscillometric device (STO), and a high-definition oscillometric device (HDO).ResultsWhen the individual sets of 5 to 7 readings were evaluated, the coefficient of variation for systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) exceeded 20% for 0% (Doppler), 11 % (STO), and 28% (HDO) of the sets of readings. After readings that exceeded a 20% coefficient of variation were discarded, repeatability was within 25 (Doppler), 37 (STO), and 39 (HDO) mm Hg for SAP. Correlation of mean values among the devices was between 0.47 and 0.63. Compared with Doppler readings, STO underestimated and HDO overestimated SAP. Limits of agreement between mean readings of any 2 devices were wide. With the hypertension scale used to score SAP, the intraclass correlation of scores was 0.48. Linear-weighted inter-rater reliability between scores was 0.40 (Doppler vs STO), 0.38 (Doppler vs HDO), and 0.29 (STO vs HDO).Conclusions And Clinical RelevanceResults of this study suggested that no meaningful clinical comparison can be made between blood pressure readings obtained from the same dog with different indirect blood pressure measurement devices.

25 keywords...

hide…