Key result
The Omron HeartGuide oscillometric watch provided comparable blood pressure values to standard devices (ICC 0.880 for 24h systolic BP), whereas the infrared smart device failed to acquire valid data.
Why the study?
Data regarding the diagnostic accuracy of smart devices measuring blood pressure compared to standard noninvasive Riva-Rocci measurements were sparse.
Do wearable watch-type blood pressure monitors provide comparable blood pressure values to conventional ambulatory blood pressure monitors and auscultatory sphygmomanometry in consecutive patients?
Observational (n=159)
Do wearable watch-type blood pressure monitors provide comparable blood pressure values to conventional ambulatory blood pressure monitors and auscultatory sphygmomanometry in consecutive patients?
Effect estimate: ICC 0.880 (systole) and 0.829 (diastole) for 24h measurement
The oscillometric watch-type blood pressure monitor provides comparable values to standard devices for single and 24-hour measurements, whereas the infrared smart device failed to acquire valid data.
May support oscillometric wrist BP monitoring in select settings; extends validation data but leaves open outcome trials.
BACKGROUND: Smart devices that are able to measure blood pressure (BP) are valuable for hypertension or heart failure management using digital technology. Data regarding their diagnostic accuracy in comparison to standard noninvasive measurement in accordance to Riva-Rocci are sparse. This study compared a wearable watch-type oscillometric BP monitor (Omron HeartGuide), a wearable watch-type infrared BP monitor (Smart Wear), a conventional ambulatory BP monitor, and auscultatory sphygmomanometry. METHODS: Therefore, 159 consecutive patients (84 male, 75 female, mean age 64.33 ± 16.14 years) performed observed single measurements with the smart device compared to auscultatory sphygmomanometry (n = 109) or multiple measurements during 24 h compared to a conventional ambulatory BP monitor on the upper arm (n = 50). The two BP monitoring devices were simultaneously worn on the same arm throughout the monitoring period. In a subgroup of 50 patients, single measurements were also performed with an additional infrared smart device. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the difference and the mean of the oscillometric Omron HeartGuide and the conventional method for the single measurement was calculated for both systole (0.765) and diastole (0.732). This is exactly how the ICC was calculated for the individual mean values calculated over the 24 h long-term measurement of the individual patients for both systole (0.880) and diastole (0.829). The ICC between the infrared device and the conventional method was "bad" for SBP (0.329) and DBP (0.025). Therefore, no further long-term measurements were performed with the infrared device. CONCLUSION: The Omron HeartGuide device provided comparable BP values to the standard devices for single and long-term measurements. The infrared smart device failed to acquire valid measurement data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaese et al. (2023) reported an observational. Wearable watch-type BP monitors (Omron HeartGuide and Smart Wear) vs. Conventional ambulatory BP monitor and auscultatory sphygmomanometry was evaluated on Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (ICC 0.880 (systole) and 0.829 (diastole) for 24h measurement). The Omron HeartGuide oscillometric watch provided comparable blood pressure values to standard devices (ICC 0.880 for 24h systolic BP), whereas the infrared smart device failed to acquire valid data.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: