Performance of wearable watch-type home blood pressure measurement devices in a real-world clinical sample.

Abstract

Independent testing of home blood pressure (BP) measurement (HBPM) devices is often lacking, particularly among older and multi-morbid patients. We studied the Bpro G2 (using tonometry), Omron HeartGuide (using occlusive oscillometric technology), and Heartisans (using photoplethysmography) wrist watch HBPM devicesagainst a gold standard brachial sphygmomanometer. To test device performance, we used the ISO81060-2 protocol (though this protocol cannot formally validate cuffless devices). We also used linear mixed models to compare adjusted longitudinal BP measurements between devices. Finally, as a surrogate for usability, we recorded instances of device failure where no BP measurement was returned. We enrolled 128 participants (median [Q1-Q3] age 53 [40-65] years, 51% male, 46% on antihypertensive drugs), of whom 100 were suitable for the primaryanalysis. All three devices had mean BP values within 5mmHg of sphygmomanometry. However, due to insufficient reliability (e.g., wider than accepted standard deviations of mean BP), none of the three devices passed all criteria required by the ISO81060-2 protocol. In adjusted longitudinal analyses, the Omron device also systematically underestimated systolic and diastolic BP (-8.46mmHg; 95% CI 6.07, 10.86; p < 0.001; and -2.53mmHg; 95% CI -4.03, -1.03; p = 0.001; respectively). Nevertheless, compared to the Omron device, BPro and Heartisans devices had increased odds of failure (BPro: odds ratio [OR] 5.24; p < 0.0001; Heartisans: OR 5.61; p < 0.001). While we could not formally validate the cuffless devices, our results show that wearable technologies will require improvements to offer reliable BP assessment. This study also highlights the need for validation protocols specifically designed for cuffless BP measurement technologies.