iPhone App compared with standard blood pressure measurement -The iPARR trial.
Journal
American heart journal
ISSN: 1097-6744
Titre abrégé: Am Heart J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370465
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
17
07
2020
accepted:
05
12
2020
pubmed:
16
12
2020
medline:
19
3
2021
entrez:
15
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The possibility to use built-in smartphone-cameras for photoplethysmographic (PPG) recording of pulse waves lead to the release of numerous health apps, claiming to measure blood pressure (BP) based on PPG signals. Even though these apps are highly popular, not a single one is clinically validated. Aim of the current study was to test systolic BP (sBP) estimation by a promising new algorithm in a large clinical setting. The study was designed based on the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol Revision 2010. Each individual received 7 sequential BP measurements, starting with the reference device - an automated oscillometric cuff device - followed by the PPG recording at the patients' index finger. A total 1,036 subjects were recruited of which 965 could be included for final analysis leading to 2,895 pairs of comparison. Mean (±SD) error between test and reference device was -0.41 (±16.52) mmHg. Only 38.1% of all 2,895 BP comparisons reached a delta within ±5 mmHg, while 29.3% reached a delta larger than 15 mmHg. Bland-Altman plot showed an overestimation of smartphone sBP in comparison to reference sBP in low range and an underestimation in high sBP range. According to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol Revision 2010 specifications the algorithm failed validation criteria for sBP measurement and was not commercialized. These findings emphasize that health apps should be rigorously validated according to common guidelines before market release as under- and/or overestimation of BP is potentially exposing persons at health risks in short and long term. ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02552030.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The possibility to use built-in smartphone-cameras for photoplethysmographic (PPG) recording of pulse waves lead to the release of numerous health apps, claiming to measure blood pressure (BP) based on PPG signals. Even though these apps are highly popular, not a single one is clinically validated. Aim of the current study was to test systolic BP (sBP) estimation by a promising new algorithm in a large clinical setting.
METHODS
The study was designed based on the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol Revision 2010. Each individual received 7 sequential BP measurements, starting with the reference device - an automated oscillometric cuff device - followed by the PPG recording at the patients' index finger.
RESULTS
A total 1,036 subjects were recruited of which 965 could be included for final analysis leading to 2,895 pairs of comparison. Mean (±SD) error between test and reference device was -0.41 (±16.52) mmHg. Only 38.1% of all 2,895 BP comparisons reached a delta within ±5 mmHg, while 29.3% reached a delta larger than 15 mmHg. Bland-Altman plot showed an overestimation of smartphone sBP in comparison to reference sBP in low range and an underestimation in high sBP range.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol Revision 2010 specifications the algorithm failed validation criteria for sBP measurement and was not commercialized. These findings emphasize that health apps should be rigorously validated according to common guidelines before market release as under- and/or overestimation of BP is potentially exposing persons at health risks in short and long term.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02552030.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33321118
pii: S0002-8703(20)30402-6
doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.12.003
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02552030']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102-108Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.