Dataset Information

The Accutension Stetho, an automated auscultatory device to validate automated sphygmomanometer readings in individual patients.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this report is to describe a new device that can validate, by automated auscultation, individual blood pressure (BP) readings taken by automated sphygmomanometers.The Accutension Stetho utilizes a smartphone application in conjunction with a specially designed stethoscope that interfaces directly into the smartphone via the earphone jack. The Korotkoff sounds are recorded by the application and are analyzed by the operator on the screen of the smartphone simultaneously with the images from the sphygmomanometer screen during BP estimation. Current auscultatory validation standards require at least 85 subjects and strict statistical criteria for passage. A device that passes can make no guarantee of accuracy on individual patients. The Accutension Stetho is an inexpensive smartphone/stethoscope kit combination that estimates precise BP values by auscultation to confirm the accuracy of an automated sphygmomanometer's readings on individual patients. This should be of great value for both professional and, in certain circumstances, self-measurement BP. Patients will avoid both unnecessary treatment and errors of underestimation of BP, in which the patient requires therapy. The Stetho's software has been validated in an independent ANSI/AAMI/ISO standard study. The Stetho has been shown to perform without difficulty in multiple deflation-based devices by many manufacturers.

SUBMITTER: Alpert BS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6026489 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Accutension Stetho, an automated auscultatory device to validate automated sphygmomanometer readings in individual patients.

Alpert Bruce S BS

Journal of human hypertension 20180406 6

The aim of this report is to describe a new device that can validate, by automated auscultation, individual blood pressure (BP) readings taken by automated sphygmomanometers.The Accutension Stetho utilizes a smartphone application in conjunction with a specially designed stethoscope that interfaces directly into the smartphone via the earphone jack. The Korotkoff sounds are recorded by the application and are analyzed by the operator on the screen of the smartphone simultaneously with the images ...[more]

PMID: 29622791

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAutomated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement involves recording several blood pressure (BP) readings using a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer with the patient resting alone in a quiet place. Although several studies have shown AOBP measurement to be more accurate than routine office BP measurement and not subject to a "white coat effect," the cumulative evidence has not yet been systematically reviewed.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between AOBP and office BP readings measured in routine clinical practice and in research studies, and ambulatory BP recorded during awake hours, as the latter is a standard for predicting future cardiovascular events.Data sourcesThe MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from 2003 to April 25, 2018.Study selectionStudies on systolic and diastolic BP measurement by AOBP in comparison with awake ambulatory BP, routine office BP, and research BP measurements were included if they contained 30 patients or more.Data extraction and synthesisStudy characteristics were abstracted independently and random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresPooled mean differences (95% CI) of systolic and diastolic BP between types of BP measurement.ResultsData were compiled from 31 articles comprising 9279 participants (4736 men and 4543 women). In samples with systolic AOBP of 130 mm Hg or more, routine office and research systolic BP readings were substantially higher than AOBP readings, with a pooled mean difference of 14.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 11.8-17.2 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 94.3%; P < .001) for routine office systolic BP readings and 7.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-9.1 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 85.7%; P < .001) for research systolic BP readings. Systolic awake ambulatory BP and AOBP readings were similar, with a pooled mean difference of 0.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7 mm Hg; n = 19; I2 = 90%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceAutomated office blood pressure readings, only when recorded properly with the patient sitting alone in a quiet place, are more accurate than office BP readings in routine clinical practice and are similar to awake ambulatory BP readings, with mean AOBP being devoid of any white coat effect. There has been some reluctance among physicians to adopt this technique because of uncertainty about its advantages compared with more traditional methods of recording BP during an office visit. Based on the evidence, AOBP should now be the preferred method for recording BP in routine clinical practice.

Project description:IntroductionNewly available, smartphone-enabled carbon monoxide (CO) monitors are lower in cost than traditional stand-alone monitors and represent a marked advancement for smoking research. New products are promising, but data are needed to compare breath CO readings between smartphone-enabled and stand-alone monitors. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the agreement between the mobile iCO (Bedfont Scientific Ltd) with two other monitors from the same manufacturer (Micro+ pro and Micro+ basic) and (2) determine optimal, monitor-specific, cotinine-confirmed abstinence cutoff values.MethodsAdult (≥18) smokers (n = 26) and nonsmokers (n = 21) provided three breath CO samples (using three different monitors) in each of 10 sessions, and urine cotinine was measured for gold standard determination of abstinence. CO comparisons (N = 437) were analyzed using regression-based Bland-Altman Analysis of Agreement; receiver operating characteristics curves were used to determine optimal abstinence cutoffs.ResultsBland-Altman analyses indicated that the iCO monitor provided higher CO results than both Micro+ monitors. Sensitivity and specificity analyses showed that the optimal CO cutoff for determining abstinence was <3 ppm for the Micro+ pro (88% sensitivity, 93% specificity) and Micro+ basic (83% sensitivity, 98% specificity), but was higher for the iCO (<6 ppm; 73% sensitivity, 100% specificity).ConclusionsRelative to both Micro+ monitors, the smartphone-enabled iCO provided systematically higher CO values and required a higher cutoff to reliably determine smoking abstinence. This does not indicate that CO values obtained using the iCO are not valid; instead, these results suggest that monitor-specific abstinence cutoffs are needed to ensure accurate bioverification of smoking status.ImplicationsResults from this study indicate that CO values from the smartphone-enabled iCO should not be used interchangeably with the stand-alone Micro+ pro and Micro+ basic, particularly when lower CO values (<10 ppm) are critical (ie, determination of abstinence vs confirming smoking status for study inclusion). Optimal CO cutoffs recommended for determining abstinence on Micro+ and iCO monitors are at <3 and <6 ppm, respectively.

Dataset Information

The Accutension Stetho, an automated auscultatory device to validate automated sphygmomanometer readings in individual patients.

Publications

The Accutension Stetho, an automated auscultatory device to validate automated sphygmomanometer readings in individual patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets