Key result
The OptiBP smartphone application demonstrated good agreement with invasive arterial monitoring for mean arterial pressure (bias 0.9 mmHg) and diastolic pressure, fulfilling AAMI/ISO standards, but did not meet criteria for systolic pressure.
Why the study?
While arterial hypertension is conventionally diagnosed and monitored using oscillometric methods, measuring blood pressure via smartphone applications could offer widespread screening and monitoring access but requires validation against reference methods.
Does the OptiBP smartphone application accurately measure blood pressure compared to invasive arterial monitoring in adult ICU patients?
Observational (n=30)
No
Does the OptiBP smartphone application accurately measure blood pressure compared to invasive arterial monitoring in adult ICU patients?
Mean Difference: 0.9 (95% CI -13–15)
The OptiBP smartphone application showed good agreement with invasive arterial monitoring for mean and diastolic blood pressure in ICU patients, though it failed to meet standards for systolic pressure and required frequent calibration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Should not yet change ICU BP monitoring practice; leaves open smartphone validation for MAP/diastolic pending RCTs.
Desebbe et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Intensive care unit patients requiring blood pressure monitoring (n=30). OptiBP smartphone application vs. Invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring (radial artery catheter) was evaluated on Agreement between OptiBP and invasive arterial blood pressure for mean arterial pressure (MAP) (MD 0.9 mmHg, 95% CI -13 to 15). The OptiBP smartphone application demonstrated good agreement with invasive arterial monitoring for mean arterial pressure (bias 0.9 mmHg) and diastolic pressure, fulfilling AAMI/ISO standards, but did not meet criteria for systolic pressure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: