Dataset Information

Smartphone Application-Assisted Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Compared With Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Hypertension: the AMUSE-BP Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The development of automated, smartphone application (app)-assisted home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) allows for standardized measurement of blood pressure (BP) at home. The aim of this study was to evaluate the (diagnostic) agreement between app-assisted HBPM, automated office BP (OBP), and the reference standard 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

Methods

In this open randomized 5-way cross-over study, patients diagnosed with hypertension were randomized to one of 10 clusters, each containing 5 BP measurement methods (ABPM, HBPM, attended OBP, unattended OBP, and unattended 30-minute BP) in different order.

Results

In total, 113 patients were included. The average 24-hour ABPM was 126±11/73±8 mm Hg compared with 141±14/82±10 mm Hg with app-assisted HBPM, 134±13/80±9 mm Hg with unattended 30-minute BP, 137±16/81±11 mm Hg with attended OBP, and 135±15/81±10 mm Hg with unattended OBP monitoring. Diagnostic agreement between app-assisted HBPM and 24-hour ABPM for diagnosing sustained (OBP >140/90 mm Hg and ABPM ≥130/80 mm Hg or HBPM ≥135/85 mm Hg), white-coat (OBP ≥140/90 mm Hg and ABPM <130/80 mm Hg or HBPM <135/85 mm Hg), and masked hypertension (OBP <140/90 mm Hg and ABPM ≥130/80 mm Hg or HBPM ≥135/85 mm Hg) was fair-to-moderate (κ statistics ranging from 0.34 to 0.40). App-assisted HBPM had high sensitivities (78%-91%) and negative predictive values (90%-97%) for diagnosing sustained and masked hypertension.

Conclusions

This study showed a considerable (diagnostic) disagreement between app-assisted HBPM and ABPM. App-assisted HBPM had high sensitivity in the diagnosis of sustained and masked hypertension and may therefore be used as complementary to, but not a replacement of, ABPM.

SUBMITTER: Groenland EH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9444260 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Smartphone Application-Assisted Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Compared With Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Hypertension: the AMUSE-BP Study.

Groenland Eline H EH Vendeville Jean-Paul A C JAC Bemelmans Remy H H RHH Monajemi Houshang H Bots Michiel L ML Visseren Frank L J FLJ Spiering Wilko W

Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 20220812 10

<h4>Background</h4>The development of automated, smartphone application (app)-assisted home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) allows for standardized measurement of blood pressure (BP) at home. The aim of this study was to evaluate the (diagnostic) agreement between app-assisted HBPM, automated office BP (OBP), and the reference standard 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).<h4>Methods</h4>In this open randomized 5-way cross-over study, patients diagnosed with hypertension were randomized to o ...[more]

PMID: 35959685

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAutomated measurement of blood pressure (BP) in designated BP kiosks have in recent years been introduced in primary care. If kiosk blood pressure (BP) monitoring provides results equivalent to in-office BP or daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), follow-up of adult patients could be managed primarily by self-checks. We therefore designed a comparative trial and evaluated the diagnostic performance of kiosk- and office-based BP (nurse- versus physician-measured) compared with daytime ABPM.MethodsA trial of automated BP monitoring in three settings: a designated BP kiosk, by nurses and physicians in clinic, and by ABPM. The primary outcome was systolic and diastolic BP, with respective diagnostic thresholds of ≥135 mmHg and/or ≥ 85 mmHg for daytime ABPM and kiosk BP and ≥ 140 mmHg and/or ≥ 90 mmHg for office BP (nurse- and physician-measured).ResultsCompared with daytime ABPM, mean systolic kiosk BP was higher by 6.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-8.6) and diastolic by 7.9 mmHg (95% CI 6.2-9.6; p < 0.001). Mean systolic BP taken by nurses was similar to daytime ABPM values (+ 2.0 mmHg; 95% CI - 0.2-4.2; p = 0.071), but nurse-measured diastolic values were higher, by 7.2 mmHg (95% CI 5.9-9.6; p < 0.001). Mean systolic and diastolic physician-measured BPs were higher compared with daytime ABPM (systolic, by 7.6 mmHg [95% CI 4.5-10.2] and diastolic by 5.8 mmHg [95% CI 4.1-7.6]; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curves of BP monitoring across pairs of systolic/diastolic cut-off levels among the three settings, with daytime ABPM as reference, demonstrated overall similar diagnostic performance between kiosk and nurse-measured values and over the curve performance for physician-measured BP. Accuracy with nurse-measured BP was 69.2% (95% CI 60.0-77.4%), compared with 65.8% (95% CI 56.5-74.3%) for kiosk BP.ConclusionsIn this study kiosk BP monitoring was not comparable to daytime ABPM but could be an alternative to in-office BP monitoring by trained nurses. The diagnostic performance of kiosk and nurse-measured BP monitoring was similar and better than that of physician-measured BP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04488289) 27/07/2020.

Project description:BackgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation.ObjectiveTo compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement.DesignComparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants.ParticipantsAdults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit.MeasuresPatient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed.Key resultsFive hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM.ConclusionsParticipants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Dataset Information

Smartphone Application-Assisted Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Compared With Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Hypertension: the AMUSE-BP Study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Smartphone Application-Assisted Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Compared With Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Hypertension: the AMUSE-BP Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets