Abstract
To provide information about the clinical relevance of blood pressure (BP) measurement differences betweena new smartphone application (OptiBP™) and the reference method (automated oscillometric technique) using a noninvasive brachial cuff in patients admitted to the emergency department. We simultaneously recorded three BP measurements using both the reference method and the novel OptiBP™(test method), except when the inter-arm difference was > 10mmHg BP. Each OptiBP™ measurement required 1-min and the subsequent reference method values were compared to the values obtained with OptiBP™ using a Bland-Altman analysis and error grid analysis. Among the 110 patients recruited, OptiBP™ BP values could be collected on 61 patients (55%) and were included in the statistical analysis. The mean of differences (95% limits of agreement) between the reference method andthe test method were - 0.1(- 22.5 to 22.4mmHg) forsystolic arterial pressure (SAP), - 0.1(- 12.9 to 12.7mmHg) fordiastolic arterial pressure (DAP)and - 0.3(- 18.1 to 17.4mmHg) formean arterial pressure (MAP).The proportions of measurements in risk zones A-E were 86.9%, 13.1%, 0%, 0%,and0% for MAPand89.3%, 10.7%, 0%, 0%,and0% for SAP. In this pilot study conducted in stable and awake patients admitted to the emergency department, the absolute agreement between the OptiBP™ and the reference method was moderate. However, when BP measurements were made immediately after an initial calibration, error grid analysis showed that 100% of measurement differences between the OptiBP™ and reference method were categorized as no- or low-risk treatment decisions for all patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04121624.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call