# Nauwkeurigheid van manchetbloeddrukmeting: systematische review en meta-analyse

*geplaatst 2017-08-01 · Hypertensie · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.064 · https://hartvaat.nl/2017/08/01/nauwkeurigheid-van-manchetbloeddrukmeting-systematische-review-en-meta-analyse/*

Systematische review die de nauwkeurigheid van manchetbloeddrukmeting evalueerde tegenover intra-arteriële metingen. Fundamenteel voor de interpretatie van klinische bloeddrukmeetresultaten.

## English: Accuracy of Cuff-Measured Blood Pressure: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

This systematic review evaluated the accuracy of cuff-based blood pressure measurement against intra-arterial reference, revealing clinically significant discrepancies that have implications for hypertension diagnosis and treatment targets.

## Abstract (original, from the publication)

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) is the single greatest cardiovascular risk factor worldwide. HTN management is usually guided by brachial cuff blood pressure (BP), but questions have been raised regarding accuracy. OBJECTIVES: This comprehensive analysis determined the accuracy of cuff BP and the consequent effect on BP classification compared with intra-arterial BP reference standards. METHODS: Three individual participant data meta-analyses were conducted among studies (from the 1950s to 2016) that measured intra-arterial aortic BP, intra-arterial brachial BP, and cuff BP. RESULTS: A total of 74 studies with 3,073 participants were included. Intra-arterial brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP) was higher than aortic values (8.0 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.9 to 10.1 mm Hg; p < 0.0001) and intra-arterial brachial diastolic BP was lower than aortic values (-1.0 mm Hg; 95% CI: -2.0 to -0.1 mm Hg; p = 0.038). Cuff BP underestimated intra-arterial brachial SBP (-5.7 mm Hg; 95% CI: -8.0 to -3.5 mm Hg; p < 0.0001) but overestimated intra-arterial diastolic BP (5.5 mm Hg; 95% CI: 3.5 to 7.5 mm Hg; p < 0.0001). Cuff and intra-arterial aortic SBP showed a small mean difference (0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI: -1.5 to 2.1 mm Hg; p = 0.77) but poor agreement (mean absolute difference 8.0 mm Hg; 95% CI: 7.1 to 8.9 mm Hg). Concordance between BP classification using the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure cuff BP (normal, pre-HTN, and HTN stages 1 and 2) compared with intra-arterial brachial BP was 60%, 50%, 53%, and 80%, and using intra-arterial aortic BP was 79%, 57%, 52%, and 76%, respectively. Using revised intra-arterial thresholds based on cuff BP percentile rank, concordance between BP classification using cuff BP compared with intra-arterial brachial BP was 71%, 66%, 52%, and 76%, and using intra-arterial aortic BP was 74%, 61%, 56%, and 65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cuff BP has variable accuracy for measuring either brachial or aortic intra-arterial BP, and this adversely influences correct BP classification. These findings indicate that stronger accuracy standards for BP devices may improve cardiovascular risk management.

Auteurs: Dean S Picone, Martin G Schultz, Petr Otahal, Svend Aakhus, Ahmed M Al-Jumaily, J Andrew Black, Willem J Bos, John B Chambers, Chen-Huan Chen, Hao-Min Cheng, Antoine Cremer, Justin E Davies, Nathan Dwyer, Brian A Gould, Alun D Hughes, Peter S Lacy, Esben Laugesen, Fuyou Liang, Roman Melamed, Sandy Muecke, Nobuyuki Ohte, Sho Okada, Stefano Omboni, Christian Ott, Xiaoqing Peng, Telmo Pereira, Giacomo Pucci, Ronak Rajani, Philip Roberts-Thomson, Niklas B Rossen, Daisuke Sueta, Manish D Sinha, Roland E Schmieder, Harold Smulyan, Velandai K Srikanth, Ralph Stewart, George A Stouffer, Kenji Takazawa, Jiguang Wang, Berend E Westerhof, Franz Weber, Thomas Weber, Bryan Williams, Hirotsugu Yamada, Eiichiro Yamamoto, James E Sharman

---
Bron: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.064. Bijgewerkt 2026-07-03T13:26:07Z. Citeer vrij, met bronvermelding en een link naar hartvaat.nl (de url van het record). Samenvattingen zijn redactioneel werk van HartVaat; de oorspronkelijke publicaties blijven van hun uitgevers (doi). Geen medisch advies.