Why the study?
Is the Microlife 3AS1-2 device accurate compared to mercury sphygmomanometry for blood pressure measurement in adults?
Is the Microlife 3AS1-2 device accurate compared to mercury sphygmomanometry for blood pressure measurement in adults?
The Microlife 3AS1-2 device was successfully modified to provide accurate blood pressure measurements, making it a viable low-cost option for low resource settings.
Supports modified low-cost BP devices in resource-limited settings; leaves open need for prospective validation before adoption.
OBJECTIVE: To assess and develop an accurate blood pressure measurement device for use in low resource settings and by untrained staff, according to the World Health Organisation guidelines. METHODS: Ninety-nine adults were recruited to validate the device according to the International Protocol of the European Society of Hypertension. All participants provided written informed consent. Patients with an arrhythmia or unclear Korotkoff sounds were excluded. Nine sequential same-arm measurements were taken from each participant alternating between the test device and mercury sphygmomanometry. Differences between the test device and observers were evaluated according to the criteria of the International Protocol and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. RESULTS: The device failed the first assessment of the oscillometric function and required modification to both the deflation rate and the algorithm to fulfil the International Protocol criteria. It then achieved an acceptable mean difference of -0.7 (4.7) mmHg for systolic and -2.0 (4.6) mmHg for diastolic pressure (oscillometric function) and -1.9 (3.8) mmHg and -0.9 (3.3) mmHg for systolic and diastolic pressures, respectively (auscultatory function). CONCLUSION: The Microlife 3AS1-2 is a semi-automated upper arm device with features consistent with low resource requirements. We successfully developed this device for accurate blood pressure measurement in adults according to the International Protocol, through adjustment of the deflation rate and algorithm. The accuracy and user-friendly design of this low-cost device makes it a highly valuable monitor in clinical practice, particularly in low resource settings and for use by untrained staff.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greeff et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: