Background: There is increasing interest in obtaining improved out-of-clinic blood pressure (BP) measurement using unobtrusive devices, particularly devices that do not require a cuff placed on the upper arm, so as to improve convenience of use for ambulatory BP measurement in clinical practice. The HealthStats BPro watch is such a device. Although the HealthStats technology has been in use for nearly 20 years and is in clinical use for ambulatory BP, there is limited published data on comparison with cuff-based techniques for ambulatory BP monitoring. Aim: To quantify the degree of agreement between BP determined using the BPro device and that by conventional cuff-based device in the ambulatory setting. Methods: 14 participants aged 52±15 (range 34–75) years (4 female) wore both a conventional brachial cuff-based sphygmomanometric device (Petr Telegin BPLab or Microlife WatchBP03) and the BPro watch for a 24-hour period. The cuff-based device was programmed to take measurements every 20 minutes during the day and every 30 minutes at night. The BPro device is factory set to take measurements every 15 minutes – hence comparison is essentially asynchronous. BP values and number of measurements were compared over the 24-hour period; the day-time period (excluding 2 hours before bed and 3 hours after waking), and the night-time period (excluding 2 hours after going to bed and 1 hour before waking). All measurements of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP were averaged for each hour before averaging to obtain the result for the 24-hour/day-time/nighttime period. Results: The cuff-based device returned results for all 14 participants. The BPro device gave an initial reading, but no subsequent readings over the 24-hour period for 1 participant. Results across the remaining 13 participants are summarized in the Table. Despite the higher frequency of attempted readings, the BPro had fewer successful readings for both SBP and DBP than the cuff-device during the day. According to the guideline, the cuff-based device gave sufficient readings for a diagnosis for the 24-hour, the day-time and the night-time period in 14, 14 and 13 of the participants, respectively. The BPro device provided adequate number of readings for 7, 4 and 11 participants respectively. Diagnosis of presence/absence of hypertension agreed between the devices in 9 of the 13 participants. Both average day-time SBP and DBP were in relatively good agreement with cuff-based BP, but with a relatively large scatter. The BPro device tended to report higher nocturnal DBP with increased variability in difference from cuff-based measures for both SBP and DBP. Conclusions: These preliminary results in a relatively small cohort suggest that the BPro device may have utility in population-based studies for day-time BP measurement. The large variability from cuff-based BP and the offset in night-time DBP suggests further investigations are required to ascertain if the source of the variability in the clinical ambulatory setting is patient specific.
|Number of pages||2|
|Publication status||Published - Nov 2018|
|Event||High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia Abstracts from the Joint HBPRCA, AAS and AVBS Meeting 2018 - Glenelg, Australia|
Duration: 27 Nov 2018 → 30 Nov 2018
|Conference||High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia Abstracts from the Joint HBPRCA, AAS and AVBS Meeting 2018|
|Period||27/11/18 → 30/11/18|