Key result
Kiosk blood pressure monitoring yielded mean systolic values 6.2 mmHg higher than daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, demonstrating they are not directly comparable.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether kiosk blood pressure monitoring provides results equivalent to daytime ABPM to allow patient follow-up primarily by self-checks.
Does automated kiosk blood pressure monitoring provide equivalent results to daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring?
RCT (n=117)
Open-label
Sealed envelopes
No
Does automated kiosk blood pressure monitoring provide equivalent results to daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring?
Kiosk BP monitoring is not comparable to daytime ABPM but offers similar diagnostic performance to nurse-measured in-office BP, making it a potential alternative for clinic visits.
Kiosk BP may offer convenient option; leaves open equivalence to ABPM for diagnosis or follow-up.
Background : If kiosk blood pressure (BP) monitoring provides results equivalent to daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), follow-up of patients could be managed primarily by self-checks. We therefore designed a trial of automated BP monitoring in three settings: a designated BP kiosk, by nurses and physicians in clinic, and by ABPM. We also evaluated the diagnostic performance of kiosk- and office-based BP (nurse- versus physician-measured) compared with ABPM. Methods: In-office and in-kiosk BP measurements were taken with Omron meters and ABPM with a Meditech device. The primary outcome was systolic and diastolic BP, with respective diagnostic thresholds of ≥135 mmHg and/or ≥85 mmHg for daytime ABPM and kiosk BP and ≥140 mmHg and/or ≥90 mmHg for office BP (nurse- and physician-measured). Results: Compared with daytime ABPM, mean systolic kiosk BP was higher by 6.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8–8.6) and diastolic by 7.9 mmHg (95% CI 6.2–9.6; p < 0.001). Mean systolic BP taken by nurses was similar to daytime ABPM values (+2.0 mmHg; 95% CI -0.2–4.2; p = 0.071), but nurse-measured diastolic values were higher, by 7.2 mmHg (95% CI 5.9–9.6; p < 0.001). Mean systolic and diastolic physician-measured BPs were higher compared with daytime ABPM (systolic, by 7.6 mmHg [95% CI 4.5–10.2] and diastolic by 5.8 mmHg [95% CI 4.1–7.6]; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curves of BP monitoring across pairs of systolic/diastolic cut-off levels among the three settings, with daytime ABPM as reference, demonstrated overall similar diagnostic performance between kiosk and nurse-measured values and over the curve performance for physician-measured BP. Accuracy with nurse-measured BP was 69.2% (95% CI 60.0%–77.4%), compared with 65.8% (95% CI 56.5%–74.3%) for kiosk BP. Conclusions : Kiosk BP monitoring is not comparable to daytime ABPM but can be an alternative to in-office BP monitoring by trained nurses. The diagnostic performance of kiosk and nurse-measured BP monitoring was similar and better than that of physician-measured BP. Trial registration : The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04488289) 27/07/2020.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nilsson et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Hypertension (n=117). Kiosk blood pressure monitoring vs. Daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was evaluated on Mean systolic blood pressure (MD 6.2, 95% CI 3.8-8.6, p=<0.001). Kiosk blood pressure monitoring yielded mean systolic values 6.2 mmHg higher than daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, demonstrating they are not directly comparable.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: