Titre
Evaluation of a novel mobile phone application for blood pressure monitoring: a proof of concept study.
Type
article
Institution
UNIL/CHUV/Unisanté + institutions partenaires
Périodique
Auteur(s)
Desebbe, O.
Auteure/Auteur
Tighenifi, A.
Auteure/Auteur
Jacobs, A.
Auteure/Auteur
Toubal, L.
Auteure/Auteur
Zekhini, Y.
Auteure/Auteur
Chirnoaga, D.
Auteure/Auteur
Collange, V.
Auteure/Auteur
Alexander, B.
Auteure/Auteur
Knebel, J.F.
Auteure/Auteur
Schoettker, P.
Auteure/Auteur
Joosten, A.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
Liens vers les unités
ISSN
1573-2614
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2022-08
Volume
36
Numéro
4
Première page
1147
Dernière page/numéro d’article
1153
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
To provide information about the clinical relevance of blood pressure (BP) measurement differences between a 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 > 10 mmHg 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 and the test method were - 0.1(- 22.5 to 22.4 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), - 0.1(- 12.9 to 12.7 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) and - 0.3(- 18.1 to 17.4 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure (MAP). The proportions of measurements in risk zones A-E were 86.9%, 13.1%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for MAP and 89.3%, 10.7%, 0%, 0%, and 0% 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.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_98B55D157BE6
PMID
Date de création
2021-09-03T16:14:53.993Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-21T01:17:07Z