Sua Kim1, Jung Dong Lee2, Jeong Bae Park2, Seungjin Jang3, Jungchae Kim4, Sang-Suk Lee5. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. JB Lab and Clinic, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Intelligence Lab, Convergence Center, LG Electronics, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Artificial Intelligence Lab, SW Center, LG Electronics, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Oriental Biomedical Engineering, Sangji University, Wonju, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a growing demand for cuffless blood pressure (BP) measurement as an easy alternative to cuff-occlusion-based BP measurement. We assessed the accuracy of a new cuffless, watch-style BP monitor with a magnetoplethysmography (MPG) sensor compared to two standard auscultatory and oscillatory BP monitors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 34 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (systolic BP ≥150 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥95 mm Hg) were enrolled in the study. BP was measured by two conventional monitors and the new device during the pre-exercise phase, during isometric handgrip exercise, and during the recovery phase (5 min after exercise). The correlation between monitors was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Although two reference monitors produced highly correlated BP measurements, each was differentially correlated with BP measurements obtained by the new MPG monitor. During exercise, the mean difference between systolic BP obtained by the MPG and oscillatory monitors was >7 mm Hg with an ICC of 0.549 (95$ CI 0.264-0.746) in systole and 0.737 (95$ CI 0.534-0.859) in diastole. The ICC between the auscultatory monitor and the MPG monitor was 0.753 (95$ CI 0.559-0.868) in systole and 0.841 (95$ CI 0.706-0.918) in diastole after exercise. Bland-Altman plots also indicated that the performance of the new MPG device was very similar to that of the auscultatory monitor. CONCLUSION: Although the performance of the new MPG monitor was comparable to that of the reference monitors used in this study, improved stability and accuracy are necessary for accurate BP evaluation during dynamic activity.
OBJECTIVE: There is a growing demand for cuffless blood pressure (BP) measurement as an easy alternative to cuff-occlusion-based BP measurement. We assessed the accuracy of a new cuffless, watch-style BP monitor with a magnetoplethysmography (MPG) sensor compared to two standard auscultatory and oscillatory BP monitors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 34 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (systolic BP ≥150 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥95 mm Hg) were enrolled in the study. BP was measured by two conventional monitors and the new device during the pre-exercise phase, during isometric handgrip exercise, and during the recovery phase (5 min after exercise). The correlation between monitors was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Although two reference monitors produced highly correlated BP measurements, each was differentially correlated with BP measurements obtained by the new MPG monitor. During exercise, the mean difference between systolic BP obtained by the MPG and oscillatory monitors was >7 mm Hg with an ICC of 0.549 (95$ CI 0.264-0.746) in systole and 0.737 (95$ CI 0.534-0.859) in diastole. The ICC between the auscultatory monitor and the MPG monitor was 0.753 (95$ CI 0.559-0.868) in systole and 0.841 (95$ CI 0.706-0.918) in diastole after exercise. Bland-Altman plots also indicated that the performance of the new MPG device was very similar to that of the auscultatory monitor. CONCLUSION: Although the performance of the new MPG monitor was comparable to that of the reference monitors used in this study, improved stability and accuracy are necessary for accurate BP evaluation during dynamic activity.
Authors: Alejandro de la Sierra; José R Banegas; Juan A Divisón; Manuel Gorostidi; Ernest Vinyoles; Juan J de la Cruz; Julián Segura; Luis M Ruilope Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2016-11-05
Authors: J A Staessen; R Fagard; L Thijs; H Celis; G G Arabidze; W H Birkenhäger; C J Bulpitt; P W de Leeuw; C T Dollery; A E Fletcher; F Forette; G Leonetti; C Nachev; E T O'Brien; J Rosenfeld; J L Rodicio; J Tuomilehto; A Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-09-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Karen L Margolis; Stephen E Asche; Anna R Bergdall; Steven P Dehmer; Sarah E Groen; Holly M Kadrmas; Tessa J Kerby; Krissa J Klotzle; Michael V Maciosek; Ryan D Michels; Patrick J O'Connor; Rachel A Pritchard; Jaime L Sekenski; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen; Nicole K Trower Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tessa S Schoot; Mariska Weenk; Tom H van de Belt; Lucien J L P G Engelen; Harry van Goor; Sebastian J H Bredie Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 5.428