Home blood pressure measurement with a wrist device and position sensor demonstrated significantly higher short-term reproducibility for systolic blood pressure compared to office measurement (SD of mean differences 3.81 vs 8.10 mmHg, p < 0.001).
Observational (n=97)
Single-blind
No
Does home blood pressure measurement with a wrist device and position sensor improve reproducibility compared to office BP and 24-h ABPM in hypertensive and normotensive subjects?
Short-term reproducibility of home blood pressure measurement with a validated wrist device featuring a position sensor is superior to office BP and 24-h ABPM, and correlates well with target organ damage.
Absolute Event Rate: 3.81% vs 8.1%
p-value: p=<0.001
BACKGROUND: Wrist blood pressure (BP) devices have physiological limits with regards to accuracy, therefore they were not preferred for home BP monitoring. However some wrist devices have been successfully validated using established validation protocols. Therefore this study assessed the reproducibility of wrist home BP measurement with position sensor and automatic data storage. METHODS: To compare the reproducibility of three different(BP) measurement methods: 1) office BP, 2) home BP (Omron wrist device HEM- 637 IT with position sensor), 3) 24-hour ambulatory BP(24-h ABPM) (ABPM-04, Meditech, Hun)conventional sphygmomanometric office BP was measured on study days 1 and 7, 24-h ABPM on study days 7 and 14 and home BP between study days 1 and 7 and between study days 8 and 14 in 69 hypertensive and 28 normotensive subjects. The correlation coefficient of each BP measurement method with echocardiographic left ventricular mass index was analyzed. The schedule of home readings was performed according to recently published European Society of Hypertension (ESH)- guidelines. RESULTS: The reproducibility of home BP measurement analyzed by the standard deviation as well as the squared differences of mean individual differences between the respective BP measurements was significantly higher than the reproducibility of office BP (p < 0.001 for systolic and diastolic BP) and the reproducibility of 24-h ABPM (p < 0.001 systolic BP, p = 0.127 diastolic BP). The reproducibility of systolic and diastolic office versus 24-h ABPM was not significantly different (p = 0.80 systolic BP, p = 0.1 diastolic BP). The correlation coefficient of 24-h ABMP (r = 0.52) with left ventricular mass index was significantly higher than with office BP (r = 0.31). The difference between 24-h ABPM and home BP (r = 0.46) was not significant. CONCLUSION: The short-term reproducibility of home BP measurement with the Omron HEM-637 IT wrist device was superior to the reproducibility of office BP and 24- h ABPM measurement. Furthermore, home BP with the wrist device showed similar correlations to targeted organ damage as recently reported for upper arm devices. Although wrist devices have to be used cautious and with defined limitations, the use of validated devices with position sensor according to recently recommended measurement schedules might have the potential to be used for therapy monitoring.
Uen et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Hypertension (n=97). Home blood pressure measurement with Omron HEM-637 IT wrist device vs. Office blood pressure and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was evaluated on Standard deviation of mean differences between two measurement periods for systolic blood pressure (p=<0.001). Home blood pressure measurement with a wrist device and position sensor demonstrated significantly higher short-term reproducibility for systolic blood pressure compared to office measurement (SD of mean differences 3.81 vs 8.10 mmHg, p < 0.001).