Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Hypertension
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Hypertension. 1994;24:234-240

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blank, S. G.
Right arrow Articles by August, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blank, S. G.
Right arrow Articles by August, P.

Hypertension, Vol 24, 234-240, Copyright © 1994 by American Heart Association


ARTICLES

How should diastolic blood pressure be defined during pregnancy?

SG Blank, G Helseth, TG Pickering, JE West and P August
Cardiovascular Center, New York (NY) Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center 10021.

Controversy exists concerning the most accurate method for defining diastolic blood pressure in pregnancy. Both disappearance (phase V) and muffling (phase IV) of Korotkoff sounds have been advocated. We previously reported an objective noninvasive method for measuring blood pressure, called K2 analysis, which in nonpregnant subjects was not different from intra-arterial diastolic blood pressure and was more accurate than the auscultatory technique. For determination of the relation of diastolic blood pressure (using K2) in pregnancy with muffling and disappearance of Korotkoff sounds, 58 women (42 hypertensive, 16 normotensive) underwent 556 blood pressure evaluations in the supine position at various stages of pregnancy. K2 analysis was compared with simultaneous auscultation by two observers, A1 (n = 461 observations; 364 hypertensive, 97 normotensive) and A2 (n = 415; 316 hypertensive, 99 normotensive). Overall, muffling was detected by observer A1 52.9% (244/461) and by observer A2 44.3% (184/415) of the time. When evaluated by clinical classification, muffling was found by both observers to be present less often in the hypertensive group (A1: 47.5%; A2: 37.3%) compared with the normotensive group (A1: 73.2%; A2: 66.7%) (P < .0001). When both observers were present (n = 348), they agreed that muffling was present only 112 times. Disappearance of sound was detected by both observers 98.3% (A1: 453/461; A2: 408/415) of the time. Muffling overestimated K2 diastolic pressure by 7 to 10 mm Hg, whereas there was no statistically significant difference between disappearance and K2 diastolic pressure for hypertensive subjects and a 2.5-mm Hg underestimation of K2 diastolic pressure for normotensive subjects.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HypertensionHome page
J. Fang, S. Madhavan, H. Cohen, and M. H. Alderman
Isolated Diastolic Hypertension : A Favorable Finding Among Young and Middle-aged Hypertensive Subjects
Hypertension, September 1, 1995; 26(3): 377 - 382.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
HypertensionHome page
S. G. Blank, S. J. Mann, G. D. James, J. E. West, and T. G. Pickering
Isolated Elevation of Diastolic Blood Pressure : Real or Artifactual?
Hypertension, September 1, 1995; 26(3): 383 - 389.
[Abstract] [Full Text]