OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure monitor among pregnant women. METHODS: Patients participating in research projects involving ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in pregnancy (N = 110) were asked to complete a questionnaire relating to patient satisfaction on completion of the monitoring period. The first part of the questionnaire involved rating on a visual Likert scale (0-10) whether they found the monitor heavy, noisy, cumbersome, disturbing, or embarrassing to wear. The second part of the questionnaire addressed whether cuff inflation caused significant sleep disturbance or physical discomfort. OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean (SD) and range of the Likert scores are reported. The number of patients reporting sleep disturbance or physical discomfort was calculated. Logistic regression was used to examine which factors were significant predictors of discontinuing monitoring. RESULTS: The mean (SD) responses measured by the Liken scores were: finding the monitor heavy 3.2 (2.3); comfortable 4.8 (2.3); straightforward to use 8.8 (1.8); cumbersome 3.8 (2.3); disturbing 4.5 (2.7); noisy 1.6 (2.2); and embarrassing to wear 1.7 (2.1). Difficulty initiating sleep was reported by 28.8% of patients, and a further 56.3% reported difficulty maintaining sleep due to the monitor. Sleep disturbance was found to be the strongest predictor [r = 0.52; OR 1.68 (1.23, 2.27), p = 0.0009] for the 15% of patients discontinuing the monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: While pregnant women tolerate the noise, weight, inconvenience, and disturbance associated with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) well, sleep disturbance is a major cause of dissatisfaction and noncompliance. Future studies should evaluate critically the number of nocturnal blood pressure assessments required, and should allow for a withdrawal rate of approximately 15% when performing sample size calculations for ABPM studies in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the acceptability of the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure monitor among pregnant women. METHODS:Patients participating in research projects involving ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in pregnancy (N = 110) were asked to complete a questionnaire relating to patient satisfaction on completion of the monitoring period. The first part of the questionnaire involved rating on a visual Likert scale (0-10) whether they found the monitor heavy, noisy, cumbersome, disturbing, or embarrassing to wear. The second part of the questionnaire addressed whether cuff inflation caused significant sleep disturbance or physical discomfort. OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean (SD) and range of the Likert scores are reported. The number of patients reporting sleep disturbance or physical discomfort was calculated. Logistic regression was used to examine which factors were significant predictors of discontinuing monitoring. RESULTS: The mean (SD) responses measured by the Liken scores were: finding the monitor heavy 3.2 (2.3); comfortable 4.8 (2.3); straightforward to use 8.8 (1.8); cumbersome 3.8 (2.3); disturbing 4.5 (2.7); noisy 1.6 (2.2); and embarrassing to wear 1.7 (2.1). Difficulty initiating sleep was reported by 28.8% of patients, and a further 56.3% reported difficulty maintaining sleep due to the monitor. Sleep disturbance was found to be the strongest predictor [r = 0.52; OR 1.68 (1.23, 2.27), p = 0.0009] for the 15% of patients discontinuing the monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: While pregnant women tolerate the noise, weight, inconvenience, and disturbance associated with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) well, sleep disturbance is a major cause of dissatisfaction and noncompliance. Future studies should evaluate critically the number of nocturnal blood pressure assessments required, and should allow for a withdrawal rate of approximately 15% when performing sample size calculations for ABPM studies in pregnancy.
Authors: Kate Walsh; Clare A McCormack; Rachel Webster; Anita Pinto; Seonjoo Lee; Tianshu Feng; H Sloan Krakovsky; Sinclaire M O'Grady; Benjamin Tycko; Frances A Champagne; Elizabeth A Werner; Grace Liu; Catherine Monk Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 11.205