BACKGROUND: The availability of an accurate continuous cuffless blood pressure (BP) monitor would provide an alternative to both invasive continuous BP and 24-h intermittent cuff-based BP monitors. We investigated the accuracy of a cuffless beat to beat (BtB) device compared to both invasive BP (iBP) and brachial cuff BP (cBP) measurements. METHODS: Patients undergoing clinically indicated coronary angiography (CA) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were recruited. After calibration to an initial cBP reading, BP was measured simultaneously using a BtB device (SOMNOtouch NIBP), brachial artery iBP, and cBP at two time points. RESULTS: The study was terminated early due to a significant bias. Recordings from 14 participants (11 males, mean age 68.4 years) were analysed. Readings from BtB BP were higher than iBP. The bias between BtB BP and iBP was 34.3 mmHg (95%CI: 27.0, 41.5) and 23.6 mmHg (95%CI: 16.8, 30.4) for SBP and DBP respectively. A similar bias was seen between BtB BP and cBP, but cBP and iBP were largely in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CA/PCI, significant differences were detected between BtB BP and both invasively measured and cuff BP. The non-invasive BtB BP measurement device tested is not suitable for clinical or research use.
BACKGROUND: The availability of an accurate continuous cuffless blood pressure (BP) monitor would provide an alternative to both invasive continuous BP and 24-h intermittent cuff-based BP monitors. We investigated the accuracy of a cuffless beat to beat (BtB) device compared to both invasive BP (iBP) and brachial cuff BP (cBP) measurements. METHODS: Patients undergoing clinically indicated coronary angiography (CA) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were recruited. After calibration to an initial cBP reading, BP was measured simultaneously using a BtB device (SOMNOtouch NIBP), brachial artery iBP, and cBP at two time points. RESULTS: The study was terminated early due to a significant bias. Recordings from 14 participants (11 males, mean age 68.4 years) were analysed. Readings from BtB BP were higher than iBP. The bias between BtB BP and iBP was 34.3 mmHg (95%CI: 27.0, 41.5) and 23.6 mmHg (95%CI: 16.8, 30.4) for SBP and DBP respectively. A similar bias was seen between BtB BP and cBP, but cBP and iBP were largely in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CA/PCI, significant differences were detected between BtB BP and both invasively measured and cuff BP. The non-invasive BtB BP measurement device tested is not suitable for clinical or research use.
Authors: S Bartsch; D Ostojic; H Schmalgemeier; T Bitter; N Westerheide; S Eckert; D Horstkotte; O Oldenburg Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: Matthew K Armstrong; Martin G Schultz; Dean S Picone; J Andrew Black; Nathan Dwyer; Philip Roberts-Thomson; James E Sharman Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Younghoon Kwon; Martin Baruch; Patrick L Stafford; Heather Bonner; Yeilim Cho; Sula Mazimba; Jeongok G Logan; Daichi Shimbo; Sung-Ha Park; Gen-Min Lin; Ali Azarbarzin; David A Calhoun; Richard Berry; Robert M Carey Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Younghoon Kwon; Patrick L Stafford; Martin C Baruch; Sung-Hoon Kim; Yeilim Cho; Sula Mazimba; Lawrence W Gimple Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 1.444