Clinical blood pressure measurement verification when comparing a Tensoval duo control device with a mercury sphygmomanometer in patients suffering from atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Measuring blood pressure using an electronic device with a dual control of measurement provides accurate results even in the case of absolute arrhythmia, such as atrial fibrillation. Minimum differences in the values of diastolic blood pressure are clinically insignificant.

Automated blood pressure measurement in atrial fibrillation

“…When separate analysis was performed of studies of automated devices that use exclusively the oscillometric method [15][16][17][18][19][20], similar results were found with pooled SBP difference of 0.9 mmHg (95% CI À1.3, 2.9) and DBP difference of 3.1 mmHg (95% CI À2.0, 8.1). The same trend was found when only devices that have been successfully validated in individuals with sinus rhythm were included [15][16][17]20,21], with pooled SBP difference of 0.6 mmHg (95% CI À1.1, 2.4) and DBP difference of 4.1 mmHg (95% CI À1.0, 7.3). The respective pooled BP differences from validation studies in individuals with sinus rhythm [22][23][24][25][26][27][28] using the successfully validated devices included in the analysis (Table 1) were À1.1 mmHg (95% CI À1.7, À0.5) for SBP and À1.5 mmHg (95% CI À1.9, À1.0) for DBP.…”

“…Four studies (n ¼ 210), providing data for five validations, reported a correlation coefficient between automated and manual SBP/DBP (Table 2) [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Pooled correlation coefficients for these BP measurements are shown in Figs.…”

“…A total of 566 individuals with sustained atrial fibrillation were included (57% men, mean age 73 years). Table 1 [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] presents the main characteristics of these studies. A standard mercury sphygmomanometer was used as reference method in five validations, a Hawksley random-zero mercury sphygmomanometer in five and an aneroid sphygmomanometer in two.…”

“…1. Overall eight articles were considered appropriate for inclusion [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], which reported 12 validation studies of 11 devices (five for self-home monitoring, three for ambulatory monitoring and three for office measurement). A total of 566 individuals with sustained atrial fibrillation were included (57% men, mean age 73 years).…”

“…In all the validations, except one, the test devices did not meet the criteria for SBP and/or DBP. Only a single study fulfilled all the AAMI [10] and the ESH-IP validation criteria [11] for both SBP and DBP [21].…”