Objectives: To evaluate high-definition and conventional oscillometry in comparison with direct blood pressure measurements in anaesthetised dogs.
Methods: Eight simultaneous readings for systolic, diastolic and mean pressure were obtained directly and with each of two devices in nine anaesthetised dogs. Measurement procedure and validation were based on the 2007 ACVIM guidelines.
Results: Sixty-three simultaneous readings were evaluated for each device and direct measurements. The mean differences (bias) to direct values were within 10 mmHg for both devices although bias for systolic and diastolic blood pressures was higher for Memodiagnostic. The standard deviations of differences (precision) were within 15 mmHg for Dinamap but exceeded for Memodiagnostic. Correlation coefficients were higher for Dinamap than Memodiagnostic but both failed to reach a correlation of 0·9. Over 50% of values lay within 10 mmHg of direct measures for both devices, but this percentage was greater for Dinamap than Memodiagnostic. Over 80% of values lay within 20 mmHg of direct measures for Dinamap but not for Memodiagnostic.
Clinical Significance: Both devices failed to meet ACVIM guideline validation. However, Dinamap only failed with regards to correlation. Memodiagnostic failed on several requirements, and based on poor correlation, accuracy and precision, this device cannot be currently recommended for dogs under anaesthesia.