Uneven Accuracy of Home Blood Pressure Measurement: A Multicentric Survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Flacco ME
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8032095 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNovel smartwatch-based cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices are coming to market and receive FDA and CE labels. These devices are often insufficiently validated for clinical use. This study aims to investigate a recently CE-cleared smartwatch using cuffless BP measurement in a population with normotensive and hypertensive individuals scheduled for 24-h BP measurement.MethodsPatients that were scheduled for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were recruited and received an additional Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 2 smartwatch for simultaneous BP measurement on their opposite arm. After calibration, patients were asked to measure as much as possible in a 24-h period. Manual activation of the smartwatch is necessary to measure the BP. Accuracy was calculated using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and ROC curves. Bland-Altman method and Taffé methods were used for bias and precision assessment. BP variability was calculated using average real variability, standard deviation and coefficient of variation.ResultsForty patients were included. Bland-Altman and Taffé methods demonstrated a proportional bias, in which low systolic BPs are overestimated, and high BPs are underestimated. Diastolic BPs were all overestimated, with increasing bias toward lower BPs. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting systolic and/or diastolic hypertension were 83 and 41%, respectively. ROC curves demonstrate an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.78 for systolic hypertension and of 0.93 for diastolic hypertension. BP variability was systematically higher in the ABPM measurements compared to the smartwatch measurements.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that the BP measurements by the Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 2 show a systematic bias toward a calibration point, overestimating low BPs and underestimating high BPs, when investigated in both normotensive and hypertensive patients. Standards for traditional non-invasive sphygmomanometers are not met, but these standards are not fully applicable to cuffless devices, emphasizing the urgent need for new standards for cuffless devices. The smartwatch-based BP measurement is not yet ready for clinical usage. Future studies are needed to further validate wearable devices, and also to demonstrate new possibilities of non-invasive, high-frequency BP monitoring.
| S-EPMC9309348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The lack of outcome-driven operational thresholds limits the clinical application of home blood pressure (BP) measurement. Our objective was to determine an outcome-driven reference frame for home BP measurement. We measured home and clinic BP in 6470 participants (mean age, 59.3 years; 56.9% women; 22.4% on antihypertensive treatment) recruited in Ohasama, Japan (n=2520); Montevideo, Uruguay (n=399); Tsurugaya, Japan (n=811); Didima, Greece (n=665); and nationwide in Finland (n=2075). In multivariable-adjusted analyses of individual subject data, we determined home BP thresholds, which yielded 10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated with stages 1 (120/80 mm Hg) and 2 (130/85 mm Hg) prehypertension, and stages 1 (140/90 mm Hg) and 2 (160/100 mm Hg) hypertension on clinic measurement. During 8.3 years of follow-up (median), 716 cardiovascular end points, 294 cardiovascular deaths, 393 strokes, and 336 cardiac events occurred in the whole cohort; in untreated participants these numbers were 414, 158, 225, and 194, respectively. In the whole cohort, outcome-driven systolic/diastolic thresholds for the home BP corresponding with stages 1 and 2 prehypertension and stages 1 and 2 hypertension were 121.4/77.7, 127.4/79.9, 133.4/82.2, and 145.4/86.8 mm Hg; in 5018 untreated participants, these thresholds were 118.5/76.9, 125.2/79.7, 131.9/82.4, and 145.3/87.9 mm Hg, respectively. Rounded thresholds for stages 1 and 2 prehypertension and stages 1 and 2 hypertension amounted to 120/75, 125/80, 130/85, and 145/90 mm Hg, respectively. Population-based outcome-driven thresholds for home BP are slightly lower than those currently proposed in hypertension guidelines. Our current findings could inform guidelines and help clinicians in diagnosing and managing patients.
| S-EPMC3607331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Blood pressure (BP) monitors rely on pulse detection. Some blood pressure monitors use pulse timings to analyse pulse interval variability for arrhythmia screening, but this assumes that the pulse interval timings detected from BP cuffs are accurate compared with RR intervals derived from ECG. In this study we compared the accuracy of pulse intervals detected using an ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) with single lead ECG. Twenty participants wore an ABPM for three hours and a data logger which synchronously measured cuff pressure and ECG. RR intervals were compared with corresponding intervals derived from the cuff pressure tracings using three different pulse landmarks. Linear mixed effects models were used to assess differences between ECG and cuff pressure timings and to investigate the effect of potential covariates. In addition, the maximum number of successive oscillometric beats detectable in a measurement was assessed. From 243 BP measurements, the landmark at the foot of the oscillometric pulse was found to be associated with fewest covariates and had a random error of 9.5?ms. 99% of the cuff pressure recordings had more than 10 successive detectable oscillometric beats. RR intervals can be accurately estimated using an ABPM.
| S-EPMC5120306 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Hypertension and cognitive impairment often coexist in older people. Office blood pressure measurement is a poor indicator for diagnosing hypertension in the general population. However, its diagnostic accuracy has not been substantially studied in patients with cognitive impairment. AIM:The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of misdiagnosis of hypertension in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia compared to no cognitive impairment, by comparing office blood pressure measurement with home blood pressure measurement. METHODS:A cross-sectional study including consecutive patients visiting a memory clinic between 2014 and 2017. Home blood pressure was measured for one week according to the European guidelines. Office blood pressure was assessed during routine clinical practice. Using guideline definitions for normal blood pressure and hypertension, we investigated the proportion of disagreement between office blood pressure measurement and home blood pressure measurement. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression compared disagreement in diagnosis between patients with dementia, mild cognitive impairment and no cognitive impairment. RESULTS:Of 213 patients (aged 73.4±9.0 years, 42% women) 82 had dementia, 65 had mild cognitive impairment and 66 had no cognitive impairment. Mean office blood pressure was 156/84±23/11 mmHg and mean home blood pressure was 139/79±16/10 mmHg. In 31% of patients, there was disagreement in hypertension diagnosis. This proportion was higher for mild cognitive impairment (38.5%) and dementia (35.4%) compared to no cognitive impairment (18.2%), with adjusted odds ratios of 3.7 (95% confidence interval 1.5-9.0), P=0.005 for mild cognitive impairment and 3.4 (1.3-8.6), P=0.011 for dementia. CONCLUSIONS:In memory clinic patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment, the diagnostic accuracy of office blood pressure measurement is lower compared to patients without cognitive impairment. To avoid the risk of making improper treatment decisions in this vulnerable group, a diagnosis of hypertension should be based on home blood pressure measurement, not office blood pressure measurement.
| S-EPMC6764005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The optimal approach to measuring office blood pressure (BP) is uncertain. We aimed to compare BP measurement protocols that differed based on numbers of readings within and between visits and by assessment method. METHODS:We enrolled a sample of 707 employees without known hypertension or cardiovascular disease, and obtained 6 standardized BP readings during each of 3 office visits at least 1 week apart, using mercury sphygmomanometer and BpTRU oscillometric devices (18 readings per participant) for a total of 12,645 readings. We used confirmatory factor analysis to develop a model estimating "true" office BP that could be used to compare the probability of correctly classifying participants' office BP status using differing numbers and types of office BP readings. RESULTS:Averaging 2 systolic BP readings across 2 visits correctly classified participants as having BP below or above the 140 mm Hg threshold at least 95% of the time if the averaged reading was <134 or >149 mm Hg, respectively. Our model demonstrated that more confidence was gained by increasing the number of visits with readings than by increasing the number of readings within a visit. No clinically significant confidence was gained by dropping the first reading vs. averaging all readings, nor by measuring with a manual mercury device vs. with an automated oscillometric device. CONCLUSIONS:Averaging 2 BP readings across 2 office visits appeared to best balance increased confidence in office BP status with efficiency of BP measurement, though the preferred measurement strategy may vary with the clinical context.
| S-EPMC7190886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is a useful tool for hypertension management. BP variability (BPV) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. However, little is known about the correlation between BPV and different measurement patterns of long-term home BP monitoring. This longitudinal cohort study aimed to assess the associations between dynamic BP measurement patterns and BPV. A total of 1128 participants (mean age, 77.4 ± 9.3 years; male, 51%) with 23 269 behavior measuring units were included. We used sliding window sampling to classify the home BP data with a regular 6-month interval into units in a sliding manner until the data are not continuous. Three measurement patterns (stable frequent [SF], stable infrequent [SI], and unstable [US]) were assessed based on the home BP data obtained within the first 3 months of the study, and the data in the subsequent 3 months were used to assess the BPV of that unit. We used linear mixed-effects model to assess the association between BP measurement patterns and BPV with adjustment for possible confounding factors including average BP. Average real variability and coefficient variability were used as measures of the BPV. No significant differences were observed in average BP between the SF, SI, and US patterns. However, BPV in the SF group was significantly lower than that in the US and SI groups (all p-values < .05). The BPV in SI and US groups was not significantly different. A stable and frequent BP measuring pattern was independently associated with a lower BPV.
| S-EPMC8029514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) in pregnancy is essential to guide medical decision making that affects both mother and fetus. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the accuracy of ambulatory, home, and clinic BP measurement devices in pregnant women. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL EBSCO, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and dabl from inception through August 3, 2017 for articles that assessed the validity of an upper arm BP measurement device against a mercury sphygmomanometer in pregnant women. Two independent investigators determined eligibility, extracted data, and adjudicated protocol violations. From 1798 potential articles identified, 41, that assessed 28 devices, met the inclusion criteria. Most articles (n=32) followed a standard or modified American National Standards Institute/Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/International Organization for Standardization, British Hypertension Society, or European Society of Hypertension validation protocol. Several articles described the results of validation studies performed on >1 device (n=7) or in >1 population of pregnant women (n=12), comprising 64 pairwise validity assessments. The device was validated in 61% (32 of 52) of studies which used a standard or modified protocol. Only 34% (11 of 32) of the studies wherein the device was successfully validated were performed without a protocol violation. Given the implications of inaccurate BP measurement in pregnant women, healthcare providers should be aware of and try to use the BP measurement devices which have been properly validated in this population.
| S-EPMC5764819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBlood pressure (BP) tracking apps may aid in hypertension (HTN) self-management, but app quality may be problematic.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop a content-dependent rating system for BP tracking apps and systematically evaluate BP tracking features, content-independent quality, functional characteristics, and educational comprehensiveness of English language iPhone apps developed with the primary purpose of tracking a consumer's BP measurements.MethodsWe created a 28-item checklist reflecting overall app quality and a simplified 2-item checklist to assess adherence with home BP monitoring best practices. Apps with educational information were evaluated for comprehensiveness on a 7-point scale and for consistency with evidence-based guidelines. Higher scores represent better quality and comprehensiveness. We searched the Canadian App Store on June 28, 2016, using the keywords hypertension and blood pressure. A total of 2 reviewers independently assessed apps according to the standardized template. We determined if paid apps, educational apps, or those rated ≥4 stars were of higher quality.ResultsOf the 948 apps screened, 62 met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall quality score was 12.2 (SD 4.6, out of 28) and 6 apps (10%, 6/62) met the home BP monitoring best practice criteria. In all, 12 apps contained educational content (mean comprehensiveness 2.4, SD 1.6 out of 14), most commonly, background information on HTN. Apps with educational content (mean 15.1, SD 3.8 vs 11.8, SD 4.8; P=.03) or a ≥4 star rating (median 19, interquartile range [IQR] 15-20, vs 12, IQR 9-15; P=.02) had higher overall quality.ConclusionsThe BP tracking apps reviewed had variable quality and few met the home BP monitoring best practice criteria. When deciding to recommend a specific BP tracking app, we suggest clinicians should evaluate whether the app allows input of duplicate BP readings in the morning and evening for at least seven days and presents the mean BP value for user-specified dates. Greater attention to home BP measurement best practices is required during app development.
| S-EPMC6484262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigated the optimal nighttime home blood pressure (BP) measurement schedule for wrist BP monitoring. Fifty hypertensive patients (mean age 68.9 ± 11.3 years) self-measured their nighttime BP hourly using a wrist-type nocturnal home BP monitoring device at home on two consecutive nights. Using the average 7.2 ± 1.5 measurements per night, we compared the clock-based index (average of three measurements at 2:00, 3:00, and 4:00 a.m.) and the bedtime-based index (average of three measurements at 2, 3, and 4 h after bedtime). The clock-based average was significantly higher than the bedtime-based average for both systolic BP (2.7 ± 8.2 mmHg, P = .002) and diastolic BP (1.9 ± 5.1 mmHg, P < .001). Compared to the average of all measurements throughout a night (the same definition of ambulatory BP monitoring, ie, from the time point of going to bed to awakening), the clock-based average was comparable (systolic/diastolic BP: -0.5 ± 5.5/-0.2 ± 3.7), whereas the bedtime-based average was significantly lower (-3.3 ± 5.0/-2.1 ± 3.6). Thus, the repeated measurement of wrist-measured nighttime BP at three clock-based time points per night provided reliable values. Further prospective studies of larger populations are required to confirm the optimal nighttime BP measurement schedule for wrist BP monitoring for the prediction of cardiovascular events.
| S-EPMC8678724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent publications have stated that the blood pressure (BP) measurement technique used in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was unattended. However, the SPRINT protocol does not address the issue of attendance. A survey was conducted immediately after SPRINT closeout visits were completed to inquire whether BP measurements were usually attended or unattended by staff. There were 4082 participants at 38 sites that measured BP after leaving the participant alone the entire time (always alone), 2247 at 25 sites that had personnel in the room the entire time (never alone), 1746 at 19 sites that left the participant alone only during the rest period (alone for rest), and 570 at 6 sites that left the participant alone only during the BP readings (alone for BP measurement). Similar systolic and diastolic BPs within randomized groups were noted during follow-up at the majority of visits in all 4 measurement categories. In the always alone and never alone categories, the intensive group had a similarly reduced risk for the primary outcome compared with the standard group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.76 and hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91, respectively; pairwise interaction P value, 0.88); risk was not significantly reduced for the intensive group in the smaller alone-for-rest and the alone-for-BP-measurement categories. Similar BP levels and cardiovascular disease risk reduction were observed in the intensive group in SPRINT participants whether the measurement technique used was primarily attended or unattended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.
| S-EPMC5967644 | biostudies-literature