4.0 Article

Measuring orthostatic hypotension with the Finometer device: is a blood pressure drop of one heartbeat clinically relevant?

Journal

BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages 167-171

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e3280b083bd

Keywords

elderly; falls; geriatric medicine; orthostatic hypotension; postural hypotension; syncope

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The role of orthostatic hypotension in falls in older people is generally accepted. Because of the high degree of intra- and interobserver variability in conventional measurements of orthostatic hypotension, application of continuous measurement systems has been proposed. The clinical relevance of a blood pressure drop lasting one heartbeat, however, is unknown. We therefore investigated which time average of continuous-finger-blood-pressure measurement (Finometer) showed the best association between orthostatic hypotension and falls. This was also compared with conventional sphygmomanometer measurements. Methods In 217 geriatric outpatients supine and standing (finger) blood pressure to diagnose orthostatic hypotension was monitored with Finometry (beat-to-beat and 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30s averages) and sphygmomanometry. History of fall incidents (previous year) was registered. Results The best association (C = 0.22, P = 0.003) with falls history was found for the 5-s average of Finometry, whereas falls and orthostatic hypotension assessed by sphygmomanometry did not correlate. The odds ratio of a fall according to orthostatic hypotension using the 5-s average was 2.54 (95% CI: 1.37 to 4.71). Conclusions Orthostatic hypotension and falls are correlated when using Finometry, with the best association found when using 5-s averages. As the etiology of falls is often multifactorial, orthostatic hypotension and falls are poorly correlated, irrespective of the method or time average that is applied.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available