Dataset Information

Comparing blood pressure measurements between a photoplethysmography-based and a standard cuff-based manometry device

ABSTRACT: Repeated blood pressure (BP) measurements allow better control of hypertension. Current measurements rely on cuff-based devices. The aim of the present study was to compare BP measurements using a novel cuff-less photoplethysmography-based device to a standard sphygmomanometer device. Males and females were recruited from within the general population who arrived at a public BP screening station. One to two measurements were taken from each using a sphygmomanometer-based and the photoplethysmography-based devices. Devices were considered equal if the mean difference between paired measurements was below 5 mmHg and the Standard Deviation (SD) was no greater than 8 mmHg. Agreement and reliability analyses were also performed. 1057 subjects were included in the study analysis. There were no adverse events during the study. The mean (±?SD) difference between paired measurements for all subjects was -0.1?±?3.6 mmHg for the systolic and 0.0?±?3.5 mmHg for the diastolic readings. We found 96.31% agreement in identifying hypertension and an Interclass Correlation Coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively. The photoplethysmography-based device was found similar to the gold-standard sphygmomanometer-based device with high agreement and reliability levels. The device might enable a reliable, more convenient method for repeated BP monitoring.

SUBMITTER: Nachman D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7527983 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurate measurement of blood pressure is the foundation of appropriate diagnosis, treatment and ongoing management of hypertension. The use of automated blood pressure devices in community settings such as pharmacies provide opportunities for additional blood pressure measurement; however, it is important to ensure that these measurements are comparable to those taken in physicians' offices using the same devices. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess whether blood pressure readings assessed by use of an automated device differed according to the setting, specifically in community pharmacies and family physicians' offices.MethodsWe included adults aged 65 years and older who did not live in long-term care facilities or in hospital. The trial was administered by volunteer peer health educators, family physicians and pharmacists in 2 midsized communities in Ontario from April to September 2010. The 5 participating family physicians mailed invitations to their eligible patients. Those who gave informed consent were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 assessment sequences: group A had their blood pressure measured at their physician's office, then at a pharmacy, then again at their physician's office; those in group B had their blood pressure measured at a pharmacy, then at their physician's office, then again at a pharmacy. An automated blood pressure device (BpTRU) was used in both settings. We calculated the differences in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and we compared the readings at both settings and by sequence of assessment.ResultsIn total, 275 adults completed the trial (mean age 75.9 yr, 49.5% male, 46.9% with a self-reported diagnosis of hypertension). There were no statistically significant differences in systolic or diastolic blood pressure measurements associated with the sequence of assessment or the setting. There was a significant difference in the overall mean systolic blood pressure between the 2 assessment sequences (group A 122.0 v. group B 127.8 mm Hg, p < 0.001).InterpretationAutomated devices used in pharmacies to measure blood pressure provide accurate and valid information that can be used in the diagnosis and management of hypertension among older adults in the community.Trial registrationwww.controlled-trials.com, no. ISRCTN91799042.

Project description:BackgroundOesophageal pressure (PES) is used for calculation of lung and chest wall mechanics and transpulmonary pressure during mechanical ventilation. Measurements performed with a balloon catheter are suggested as a basis for setting the ventilator; however, measurements are affected by several factors. High-resolution manometry (HRM) simultaneously measures pressures at every centimetre in the whole oesophagus and thereby provides extended information about oesophageal pressure. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the factors affecting oesophageal pressure using HRM.MethodsOesophageal pressure was measured using a high-resolution manometry catheter in 20 mechanically ventilated patients (15 in the ICU and 5 in the OR). Different PEEP levels and different sizes of tidal volume were applied while pressures were measured continuously. In 10 patients, oesophageal pressure was also measured using a conventional balloon catheter for comparison. A retrospective analysis of oesophageal pressure measured with HRM in supine and sitting positions in 17 awake spontaneously breathing patients is also included.ResultsHRM showed large variations in end-expiratory PES (PESEE) and tidal changes in PES (ΔPES) along the oesophagus. Mean intra-individual difference between the minimum and maximum end-expiratory oesophageal pressure (PESEE at baseline PEEP) and tidal variations in oesophageal pressure (ΔPES at tidal volume 6 ml/kg) recorded by HRM in the different sections of the oesophagus was 23.7 (7.9) cmH2O and 7.6 (3.9) cmH2O respectively. Oesophageal pressures were affected by tidal volume, level of PEEP, part of the oesophagus included and patient positioning. HRM identified simultaneous increases and decreases in PES within a majority of individual patients. Compared to sitting position, supine position increased PESEE (mean difference 12.3 cmH2O), pressure variation within individual patients and cardiac artefacts. The pressure measured with a balloon catheter did not correspond to the average pressure measured with HRM within the same part of the oesophagus.ConclusionsThe intra-individual variability in PESEE and ΔPES is substantial, and as a result, the balloon on the conventional catheter is affected by many different pressures along its length. Oesophageal pressures are not only affected by lung and chest wall mechanics but are a complex product of many factors, which is not obvious during conventional measurements. For correct calculations of transpulmonary pressure, factors influencing oesophageal pressures need to be known. HRM, which is available at many hospitals, can be used to increase the knowledge concerning these factors.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02901158.

Project description:Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a disease of the aortic wall, which can progress to catastrophic rupture. Assessment of mechanical characteristics of AAA, such as aortic distensibility, may provide important insights to help identify at-risk patients and understand disease progression. While the majority of studies on this topic have focused on retrospective patient data, recent studies have used mouse models of AAA to prospectively evaluate the evolution of aortic mechanics. Quantification of aortic distensibility requires accurate measurement of arterial blood pressure, particularly pulse pressure, which is challenging to perform accurately in murine models. We hypothesized that volume/pressure tail-cuff measurements of arterial pulse pressure in anesthetized mice would have sufficient accuracy to enable calculations of aortic distensibility with minimal error. Telemetry devices and osmotic mini-pumps filled with saline or angiotensin-II were surgically implanted in male apolipoprotein-E deficient (ApoE(-/-)) mice. Blood pressure in the aortic arch was measured continuously via telemetry. In addition, simultaneous blood pressure measurements with a volume/pressure tail-cuff system were performed under anesthesia at specific intervals to assess agreement between techniques. Compared to controls, mice infused with angiotensin-II had an overall statistically significant increase in systolic pressure, with no overall difference in pulse pressure; however, pulse pressure did increase significantly with time. Systolic measurements agreed well between telemetry and tail-cuff (coefficient of variation = 10%), but agreement of pulse pressure was weak (20%). In fact, group-averaged pulse pressure from telemetry was a better predictor of a subject's pulse pressure on a given day than a simultaneous tail-cuff measurement. Furthermore, these approximations introduced acceptable errors (15.1 ± 12.8%) into the calculation of aortic distensibility. Contrary to our hypothesis, we conclude that tail-cuff measures of arterial pulse pressure have limited accuracy. Future studies of aneurysm mechanics using the ApoE(-/-)/angiotensin-II model would be better in assuming pulse pressure profiles consistent with our telemetry findings instead of attempting to measure pulse pressure in individual mice.

Dataset Information

Comparing blood pressure measurements between a photoplethysmography-based and a standard cuff-based manometry device

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets