No abstract

This experiment showed that the accuracy of blood pressure measurements using the auscultatory method is affected by observer hearing level. Therefore, to reduce possible error using the auscultatory method, observers' hearing should be tested.

The purpose of the study is to analyse how the standard of resting metabolic rate (RMR) affects estimation of the metabolic equivalent of task (MET) using an accelerometer. In order to investigate the effect on estimation according to intensity of activity, comparisons were conducted between the 3.5 ml O · kg · min and individually measured resting VO as the standard of 1 MET. MET was estimated by linear regression equations that were derived through five-fold cross-validation using 2 types of MET values and accelerations; the accuracy of estimation was analysed through cross-validation, Bland and Altman plot, and one-way ANOVA test. There were no significant differences in the RMS error after cross-validation. However, the individual RMR-based estimations had as many as 0.5 METs of mean difference in modified Bland and Altman plots than RMR of 3.5 ml O · kg · min. Finally, the results of an ANOVA test indicated that the individual RMR-based estimations had less significant differences between the reference and estimated values at each intensity of activity. In conclusion, the RMR standard is a factor that affects accurate estimation of METs by acceleration; therefore, RMR requires individual specification when it is used for estimation of METs using an accelerometer.

Higher blood pressure variability (BPV) is associated with poor functional outcome and mortality in acute stroke. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on BPV between fimasartan and valsartan (Boryung Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to receive either valsartan or fimasartan after 7 days of acute ischemic stroke onset, for duration of 8 weeks. Of them, 62 patients completed the study [valsartan (n=31), fimasartan (n=31)]. We measured BP for 24 hours using ambulatory BP monitoring device before and after 8 weeks of starting BP medication. We calculated several indexes such as standard deviation (SD), weighted 24-hour BP with SD (wSD), coefficient of variation (CV), and average real variability (ARV) to assess BPV and to compare indexes of BPV between 2 drugs. SD values of systolic BP in daytime, nighttime, and 24 h period (15.55±4.02 versus 20.55±8.77, P=0.006; 11.98±5.52 versus 16.47±6.94, P=0.007; 17.22±5.30 versus 21.45±8.51, P=0.024), wSD of systolic BP (8.27±3.01 versus 10.77±4.18, P=0.010), and ARV of systolic BP (15.85±6.17 versus 19.68±7.83, P=0.040) of patients receiving fimasartan after 8 weeks were significantly lower than patients receiving valsartan. In paired t-test, SD values of daytime, nighttime, and 24 h period of systolic BP of patients receiving fimasartan were significantly decreased after 8 weeks (15.55±4.02 versus 18.70±7.04, P=0.038; 11.98±5.52 versus 17.19±7.35, P=0.006; 17.22±5.30 versus 20.59±5.91, P=0.015). Our study showed that fimasartan had greater effect on reducing BPV after acute ischemic stroke than valsartan. Trials registry number is KCT0003254.