Literature DB >> 34978654

Evaluation of a new smartphone optical blood pressure application (OptiBP™) in the post-anesthesia care unit: a method comparison study against the non-invasive automatic oscillometric brachial cuff as the reference method.

Olivier Desebbe1, Mohammed El Hilali2, Karim Kouz3, Brenton Alexander4, Lydia Karam5, Dragos Chirnoaga2, Jean-Francois Knebel6, Jean Degott7, Patrick Schoettker7, Frederic Michard8, Bernd Saugel3,9, Jean-Louis Vincent10, Alexandre Joosten11,12,13.   

Abstract

We compared blood pressure (BP) values obtained with a new optical smartphone application (OptiBP™) with BP values obtained using a non-invasive automatic oscillometric brachial cuff (reference method) during the first 2 h of surveillance in a post-anesthesia care unit in patients after non-cardiac surgery. Three simultaneous BP measurements of both methods were recorded every 30 min over a 2-h period. The agreement between measurements was investigated using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses. We also evaluated the performance of the OptiBP™ using ISO81060-2:2018 standards which requires the mean of the differences ± standard deviation (SD) between both methods to be less than 5 mmHg ± 8 mmHg. Of 120 patients enrolled, 101 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean of the differences ± SD between the test and reference methods of + 1 mmHg ± 7 mmHg for mean arterial pressure (MAP), + 2 mmHg ± 11 mmHg for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), and + 1 mmHg ± 8 mmHg for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP). Error grid analysis showed that the proportions of measurement pairs in risk zones A to E were 90.3% (no risk), 9.7% (low risk), 0% (moderate risk), 0% (significant risk), 0% (dangerous risk) for MAP and 89.9%, 9.1%, 1%, 0%, 0% for SAP. We observed a good agreement between BP values obtained by the OptiBP™ system and BP values obtained with the reference method. The OptiBP™ system fulfilled the AAMI validation requirements for MAP and DAP and error grid analysis indicated that the vast majority of measurement pairs (≥ 99%) were in risk zones A and B.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04262323.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arterial hypertension; Hemodynamic; Hemodynamic monitoring; Mobile health; Mobile phone; Postoperative

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34978654     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-021-00795-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   1.977


  1 in total

1.  Machine Learning Approaches For Improved Continuous, Non-occlusive Arterial Pressure Monitoring Using Photoplethysmography.

Authors:  Joao Jorge; Martin Proenca; Clementine Aguet; Jerome Van Zaen; Guillaume Bonnier; Phillipe Renevey; Alia Lemkaddem; Patrick Schoettker; Mathieu Lemay
Journal:  Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2020-07
  1 in total
  3 in total

1.  A novel smartphone app for blood pressure measurement: a proof-of-concept study against an arterial catheter.

Authors:  G Hofmann; M Proença; J Degott; G Bonnier; A Lemkaddem; M Lemay; R Schorer; U Christen; J-F Knebel; P Schoettker
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Hemodynamic Monitoring by Smartphone-Preliminary Report from a Comparative Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Michał P Pluta; Magdalena Dziech; Mateusz N Zachura; Anna J Szczepańska; Piotr F Czempik; Piotr S Liberski; Łukasz J Krzych
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-02-01

3.  Evaluation of a novel optical smartphone blood pressure application: a method comparison study against invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring in intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  Olivier Desebbe; Chbabou Anas; Brenton Alexander; Karim Kouz; Jean-Francois Knebel; Patrick Schoettker; Jacques Creteur; Jean-Louis Vincent; Alexandre Joosten
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 2.376

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.