Comparing blood pressure measurements between a photoplethysmography-based and a standard cuff-based manometry device.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Blood Pressure
/ physiology
Blood Pressure Determination
/ methods
Blood Pressure Monitors
Child
Female
Humans
Hypertension
/ physiopathology
Male
Manometry
/ methods
Middle Aged
Oscillometry
/ methods
Photoplethysmography
/ methods
Prospective Studies
Reference Standards
Reproducibility of Results
Sphygmomanometers
Young Adult
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 09 2020
30 09 2020
Historique:
received:
07
02
2020
accepted:
10
09
2020
entrez:
1
10
2020
pubmed:
2
10
2020
medline:
5
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32999400
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73172-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-73172-3
pmc: PMC7527983
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16116Références
Weir, M.R. In the clinic: hypertension. Ann. Intern. Med. 161, ITC1–15 (2014).
Flint, A. C. et al. Effect of systolic and diastolic blood pressure on cardiovascular outcomes. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 243–251 (2019).
pubmed: 31314968
Rapsomaniki, E. et al. Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1.25 million people. Lancet 383, 1899–911 (2014).
pubmed: 24881994
pmcid: 4042017
Aylett, M. et al. Evaluation of normal and large sphygmomanometer cuffs using the Omron 705CP. J. Hum. Hypertens. 15, 131–134 (2001).
pubmed: 11317193
Beevers, D. G. et al. Standards for blood pressure measuring devices. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 294, 1614 (1987).
Schoot, T. S. et al. A new cuffless device for measuring blood pressure: a real-life validation study. J. Med. Internet. Res. 18, e85 (2016).
pubmed: 27150527
pmcid: 4873623
Ruzicka, M. & Hiremath, S. Accuracy-limiting factor of home blood pressure monitors?. Am. J. Hypertens. 30, 661–664 (2017).
pubmed: 28430845
Solá, J., et al. Wearable PWV technologies to measure Blood Pressure: eliminating brachial cuffs. In 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 4098–4101 (2013).
Kronish, I. M. et al. Barriers to conducting ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring during hypertension screening in the United States. J. Am. Soc. Hypertens. 11, 573–580 (2017).
pubmed: 28734798
pmcid: 5595651
Pickering, T. G. et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research. Circulation 111, 697–716 (2005).
pubmed: 15699287
Forouzanfar, M. H. et al. Global burden of hypertension and systolic blood pressure of at least 110 to 115 mm Hg, 1990–2015. JAMA 317, 165–182 (2017).
pubmed: 28097354
Greenland, P. & Peterson, E. The new 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines “up the pressure” on diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. JAMA 318, 2083–2084 (2017).
pubmed: 29159417
Cifu, A. S. & Davis, A. M. Prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. JAMA 318, 2132–2134 (2017).
pubmed: 29159416
Whelton, P. K. et al. ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 71, e13–e115 (2018).
pubmed: 29133356
Whelton, P. K. et al. ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 71, 2199–2269 (2018).
pubmed: 29146533
Ding, X. R. Continuous blood pressure measurement from invasive to unobtrusive: celebration of 200th birth anniversary of Carl-Ludwig. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 20, 1455–1465 (2016).
pubmed: 28113184
Muntner, P. et al. Potential US population impact of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association High Blood Pressure Guideline. Circulation 137, 109–118 (2018).
pubmed: 29133599
Ioannidis, J. P. A. Diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines and in the realworld. JAMA 319, 115–116 (2018).
pubmed: 29242891
Danaei, G. et al. The preventable causes of death in the United States: comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors. PLoS Med. 6, e1000058 (2009).
pubmed: 19399161
pmcid: 2667673
Roerecke, M. et al. Comparing automated office blood pressure readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement for identifying patients with possible hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern. Med. 179, 351–362 (2019).
pubmed: 30715088
pmcid: 6439707
Leung, A. A. et al. CHEP Guidelines Task Force. Hypertension Canada’s 2016 Canadian Hypertension Education Program guidelines for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension. Can. J. Cardiol. 32, 569–88 (2016).
pubmed: 27118291
Myers, M. G. The great myth of office blood pressure measurement. J. Hypertens. 30, 1894–1898 (2012).
pubmed: 22871894
Myers, M. G. A short history of automated office blood pressure—15 years to SPRINT. J. Clin. Hypertens. (Greenwich) 18, 721–724 (2016).
de la Sierra, A. et al. Ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients with inclusion criteria for the SPRINT trial. J. Am. Soc. Hypertens. 10, 947–953 (2016).
pubmed: 27865822
ISO 81060-2:2013. Non-invasive Sphygmomanometers—Part 2: Clinical Investigation of Automated Measurement Type. https://www.iso.org/standard/57977.html
Koo, T. K. & Li, M. Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med. 15, 155–163 (2016).
pubmed: 27330520
pmcid: 4913118