Literature DB >> 10226203

Evaluation of three devices for self-measurement of blood pressure according to the revised British Hypertension Society Protocol: the Omron HEM-705CP, Philips HP5332, and Nissei DS-175.

.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated three devices for self-measurement of blood pressure - the Omron HEM-705CP, the Philips HP5332 and the Nissei DS-175 - according to the revised protocol of the British Hypertension Society (BHS). The results were also analysed according to the criteria for accuracy of the revised standard of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI).
DESIGN: The revised BHS protocol is divided into two parts. Part I, the part applicable to this study, comprises the main validation procedure and has five phases: Before-use device calibration; in-use (field) phase; after-use device calibration; static device validation; report of evaluation.
METHODS: Three models of each device passed the before-use device calibration test, after which they entered the in-use phase, which involved use of the three recorders for a month; inter-device calibration was assessed again at the end of the month. There was no difference in calibration testing between the three models of each device, and therefore one of each was selected randomly; the main validation test was carried out in 85 subjects with a wide range of pressures, and the results were analysed according to the BHS grading system from A to D.
RESULTS: The Omron HEM-705CP achieved an overall B/A grading and fulfilled the AAMI accuracy criteria; the Philips HP5332 achieved an overall C/A grading and failed the AAMI accuracy criteria for measuring systolic pressure; the Nissei DS-175 achieved an overall D/A grading and failed the AAMI accuracy criteria for measuring systolic pressure. When the BHS and AAMI criteria were applied to tertiles of pressure (low-pressure range < 130/80 mmHg; medium-pressure range 130-160/80-100 mmHg; high-pressure range > 160/100 mmHg) all three devices were less accurate in the high-pressure range: the Omron HEM-705CP achieved C/B grading while continuing to fulfil the AAMI criteria; the Philips HP5332 dropped to D grading for systolic pressure and the Nissei DS-175 achieved a lower D grading for systolic pressure. The mean and standard deviation of the first mercury sphygmomanometer measurements were 148+/-35/88+/-22 mmHg. Acceptability by the users was good and the manufacturer's manual was satisfactory for all three devices.
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, the Omron HEM-705CP was the most accurate of the three devices tested, achieving Grade B for systolic and Grade A for diastolic pressure, as well as fulfilling the AAMI criteria for accuracy for both systolic and diastolic pressure. It can therefore be recommended for the clinical measurement of blood pressure and is the first inexpensive device to satisfy the accuracy criteria of these protocols.

Entities:  

Year:  1996        PMID: 10226203

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood Press Monit        ISSN: 1359-5237            Impact factor:   1.444


  84 in total

1.  Changes in the derived central pressure waveform and pulse pressure in response to angiotensin II and noradrenaline in man.

Authors:  I B Wilkinson; H MacCallum; P C Hupperetz; C J van Thoor ; J R Cockcroft; D J Webb
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2001-02-01       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  The influence of heart rate on augmentation index and central arterial pressure in humans.

Authors:  I B Wilkinson; H MacCallum; L Flint; J R Cockcroft; D E Newby; D J Webb
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2000-05-15       Impact factor: 5.182

3.  Blood pressure measuring devices: recommendations of the European Society of Hypertension.

Authors:  E O'Brien; B Waeber; G Parati; J Staessen; M G Myers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-03

4.  A new approach to blood pressure measurement in the primary care setting.

Authors:  A Kershenbaum; S Sadetzki; A Chetrit; Z Fuchs; G Bott-Kanner; J Rosenfeld; B Modan
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 5.  Importance of various methods of blood pressure measurement in clinical trials.

Authors:  P Palatini
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 5.369

6.  Pressure for change: unresolved issues in blood pressure measurement.

Authors:  M Aylett
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Relationship of vitamin D levels to blood pressure in a biethnic population.

Authors:  R Sakamoto; K Jaceldo-Siegl; E Haddad; K Oda; G E Fraser; S Tonstad
Journal:  Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2012-07-04       Impact factor: 4.222

8.  Irbesartan/HCTZ fixed combinations in patients of different racial/ethnic groups with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure on monotherapy.

Authors:  Elizabeth O Ofili; Keith C Ferdinand; Elijah Saunders; Joel M Neutel; George L Bakris; William C Cushman; James R Sowers; Michael A Weber
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.798

9.  Outcome-Driven Thresholds for Ambulatory Blood Pressure Based on the New American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Classification of Hypertension.

Authors:  Yi-Bang Cheng; Lutgarde Thijs; Zhen-Yu Zhang; Masahiro Kikuya; Wen-Yi Yang; Jesus D Melgarejo; José Boggia; Fang-Fei Wei; Tine W Hansen; Cai-Guo Yu; Kei Asayama; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Eamon Dolan; Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek; Sofia Malyutina; Edoardo Casiglia; Lars Lind; Jan Filipovský; Gladys E Maestre; Yutaka Imai; Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz; Edgardo Sandoya; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Yan Li; Eoin O'Brien; Ji-Guang Wang; Jan A Staessen
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 10.190

10.  Comparative effects of glyceryl trinitrate and amyl nitrite on pulse wave reflection and augmentation index.

Authors:  Lynn D Greig; Stephen J Leslie; Fraser W Gibb; Sherilyn Tan; David E Newby; David J Webb
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.