Key result
The Checkme cuffless blood pressure monitor showed high intrauser correlation (R=0.86) and strong correlation with home monitors for mean SBP over 3 weeks (R=0.75, P=0.008).
Why the study?
Does a cuffless device (Checkme monitor) provide feasible and comparable ambulatory systolic blood pressure measurements compared to a classic home BP monitor in patients with hypertension?
Does a cuffless device (Checkme monitor) provide feasible and comparable ambulatory systolic blood pressure measurements compared to a classic home BP monitor in patients with hypertension?
Effect estimate: R=0.75
p-value: p=0.008
A cuffless BP monitor demonstrated good intrauser reproducibility and high user-friendliness for ambulatory SBP measurement in hypertensive patients, suggesting potential for frequent home monitoring.
May support cuffless SBP monitoring in hypertension; leaves open validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND Frequent home blood pressure (BP) measurements result in a better estimation of the true BP. However, traditional cuff-based BP measurements are troublesome for patients. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a cuffless device for ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurement. METHODS This was a mixed method feasibility study in patients with hypertension. Performance of ambulatory SBPs with the device was analyzed quantitatively by intrauser reproducibility and comparability to a classic home BP monitor. Correct use by the patients was checked with video, and user-friendliness was assessed using a validated questionnaire, the System Usability Scale (SUS). Patient experiences were assessed using qualitative interviews. RESULTS A total of 1020 SBP measurements were performed using the Checkme monitor in 11 patients with hypertension. Duplicate SBPs showed a high intrauser correlation (R=0.86, P<.001). SBPs measured by the Checkme monitor did not correlate well with those of the different home monitors (R=0.47, P=.007). However, the mean SBPs measured by the Checkme and home monitors over the 3-week follow-up were strongly correlated (R=0.75, P=.008). In addition, 36.4% (n=4) of the participants performed the Checkme measurements without any mistakes. The mean SUS score was 86.4 (SD 8.3). The most important facilitator was the ease of using the Checkme monitor. Most important barriers included the absence of diastolic BP and the incidental difficulties in obtaining an SBP result. CONCLUSIONS Given the good intrauser reproducibility, user-friendliness, and patient experience, all of which facilitate patients to perform frequent measurements, cuffless BP monitoring may change the way patients measure their BP at home in the context of ambulant hypertension management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ogink et al. (2018) studied hypertension (n=11). Checkme monitor vs. classic home BP monitor was evaluated on intrauser reproducibility and comparability to a classic home BP monitor (R=0.75, p=0.008). The Checkme cuffless blood pressure monitor showed high intrauser correlation (R=0.86) and strong correlation with home monitors for mean SBP over 3 weeks (R=0.75, P=0.008).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: