Skip to main content
  • Research Article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Comparison of simultaneous invasive and non-invasive measurements of blood pressure based upon MIMIC II database



To compare the simultaneous invasive and non-invasive measurements of blood pressure (IBP and NIBP) based upon the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II (MIMIC II) database.

Methods and results

A total of 986 records and 26,942 blood pressure (BP) measurements were extracted from MIMIC II database. The mean values of invasive systolic and invasive diastolic blood pressure (ISBP and IDBP) were 111.2 ± 33.9 mm Hg and 59.9 ± 22.8 mm Hg respectively, and the values of non-invasive ones were 114.0 ± 23.4 mm Hg and 51.0 ± 14.9 mm Hg. The average differences of systolic and diastolic blood pressure were −2.8 mm Hg and 8.9 mm Hg between IBP and NIBP. The correlation coefficients were 0.60 between ISBP and NISBP and 0.45 between IDBP and NIDBP. The robust regression equations between IBP (y) and NIBP (x) showed y = 1.02x − 2.95 for SBP (R2 = 0.60) and y = 0.77x + 18.43 for DBP (R2 = 0.82). At the higher part of BP, IBP is larger than NIBP, and at the lower part of BP, IBP is less than NIBP.


Average invasive systolic blood pressure is lower than the non-invasive one and average invasive diastolic blood pressure is higher than the non-invasive one. The IBP shows good correlation with the NIBP. The invasive blood pressures can be estimated from noninvasive ones by the regression equations.


  1. Heber ME, Raftery EB, Thompson D. Intra-arterial ambulatory blood pressure monitoring can save your life – or, acute hae-modynamic response to a murderous assault. Int J Cardiol 1988; 20: 138–41.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Manoach S, Weingart SD, Charchaflieh J. The evolution and current use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring for predicting volume responsiveness during resuscitation, perioperative, and critical care. J Clin Anesth 2012; 24: 242–50.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hodgkin B, Burkett D, Smith E. Noninvasive measurement of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in swine. J Appl Physiol 1982; 240: H127–30.

  4. Cimini CM, Zambraski EJ. Non-invasive blood pressure measurement in Yucatan miniature swine using tail cuff sphygmo-manometry. Lab Anim Sci 1985; 35: 412–6.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cruz J, Caulkett N, Riley C. Blood pressure measurement in anaesthetized sows: comparison between invasive and oscillometric methods during short term laparoscopic surgery. Vet Anaesth Analg 1998; 1: 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Knaevelstrud T, Framstad T. Measurement of arterial blood pressure in the sow. A comparison between an invasive and an automatic oscillometric method. Vet Anaesth Analg 1992; 19: 10–2.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bodey AR, Michell AR, Bovee KC, Buranakurl C, Garg T. Comparison of direct and indirect (oscillometric) measurements of arterial blood pressure in conscious dogs. Res Vet Sci 1996; 61: 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chow PK, Ng TH, Heng D. A simple method of blood pressure measurement in the pig using a neonatal cuff. Ann Acad Med Singap 1999; 28: 15–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gladczak AK, Shires PK, Stevens KA, Clymer JW. Comparison of indirect and direct blood pressure monitoring in normotensive swine. Res Vet Sci 2013; 95: 699–702.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wiecek EM, McCartney N, McKelvie RS. Comparison of direct and indirect measures of systemic arterial pressure during weightlifting in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1990; 66: 1065–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Broadhurst P, Brigden G, Dasgupta P, Lahiri A, Raftery EB. Ambulatory intra-arterial blood pressure in normal subjects. Am Heart J 1990; 120: 160–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brown MA, Reiter L, Smith B. Measuring blood pressure in pregnant women: a comparison of direct and indirect methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171: 661–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lalan S, Blowey D. Comparison between oscillometric and intra-arterial blood pressure measurements in ill preterm and full-term neonates. Am J Hypertens 2014; 8: 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Saeed M, Villarroel M, Reisner AT, Clifford G, Lehman LW, Moody G, et al. Multiparameter intelligent monitoring in intensive care II: a public-access intensive care unit database. Crit Care Med 2011; 39: 952–60.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goldberger AL, Amaral LA, Glass L, Hausdorff JM, Ivanov PC, Mark RG, et al. PhysioBank, PhysioToolkit, and PhysioNet: components of a new research resource for complex physiologic signals. Circulation 2000; 101: e215–220.

  16. The MIMIC II Database. Available online at: http: //

  17. Bland JM, Altman DJ. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995; 346: 1085–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kenneth M, Borow KM, Jane W, Newburger JW. Noninvasive estimation of central aortic pressure using the oscillometric method for analyzing systemic artery pulsatile blood flow: comparative study of indirect systolic, diastolic, and mean brachial artery pressure with simultaneous direct ascending aortic pressure measurements. Am Heart J 1982; 103: 879–86.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cheng HM, Lang D, Tufanaru C, Pearson A. Measurement accuracy of non-invasively obtained central blood pressure by applanation tonometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2013; 167: 1867–76.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bing Liu.

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, B., Qiu, P., Chen, H. et al. Comparison of simultaneous invasive and non-invasive measurements of blood pressure based upon MIMIC II database. Artery Res 8, 209–213 (2014).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Key Words