Key result
Automated blood pressure measurement showed excellent concordance with manual measurement for systolic blood pressure during clinical exercise testing (ICC 0.964; 95% CI 0.942-0.977).
Why the study?
Manual blood pressure measurement during exercise testing is the recommended standard, but little data exist comparing manual and automated measurements in this setting.
Does automated blood pressure measurement provide concordant readings compared to manual measurement during graded exercise testing in patients with type 2 diabetes?
Observational (n=416)
Single-blind
Does automated blood pressure measurement provide concordant readings compared to manual measurement during graded exercise testing in patients with type 2 diabetes?
Automated blood pressure measurement using the Tango+ device shows excellent concordance with manual measurement for systolic BP during clinical exercise testing in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Supports automated systolic BP during exercise testing in T2D; hypothesis-generating pending prospective validation.
Manual measurement of blood pressure (BP) during exercise testing is the recommended standard. Automated measurement of BP is an alternative method used during clinical exercise testing, but there is little data comparing manual and automated BP in this setting. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance between manual and automated BP during a standard clinical treadmill exercise test. 416 participants (66 ± 5 years; 54% male) completed a Bruce treadmill exercise test at baseline or follow-up within a clinical trial of participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Manual and automated BP were measured simultaneously at each exercise test stage. Manual BP was measured by a technician blinded to automated BP values (Tango+, Suntech). Concordance between manual and automated BP was assessed using mean differences and intraclass correlations (ICC). Concordance between manual and automated BP across all exercise stages was excellent for systolic BP (overall mean difference: 3 ± 11 mm Hg, P = .598; ICC = 0.964 [95% CI 0.942-0.977] and pulse pressure (overall mean difference: 2 ± 14 mm Hg, P = .595; ICC = 0.934 [95% CI 0.899-0.956]). Concordance between manual and automated diastolic BP across all exercise stages was moderate-to-good (overall mean difference: 1 ± 9 mm Hg, P = .905; ICC = 0.784 [95% CI 0.672-0.858]). Automated BP using the Tango + device is concordant with manual BP during early stages of a standard clinical exercise test. Thus, this automated method may be a suitable alternative to manual measurement of BP during clinical exercise testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moore et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=416). Automated blood pressure measurement (Tango+) vs. Manual blood pressure measurement was evaluated on Concordance between manual and automated systolic blood pressure (ICC 0.964, 95% CI 0.942-0.977, p=.598). Automated blood pressure measurement showed excellent concordance with manual measurement for systolic blood pressure during clinical exercise testing (ICC 0.964; 95% CI 0.942-0.977).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: