Key result
Cuffless beat-to-beat BP overestimates invasive systolic BP by ~34 mmHg.
Why the study?
An accurate continuous cuffless BP monitor would offer an alternative to invasive continuous BP and 24-h intermittent cuff-based monitoring, prompting investigation into the accuracy of a cuffless beat-to-beat device.
Does a cuffless beat-to-beat blood pressure device accurately measure blood pressure compared to invasive and cuff-based methods in patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI?
Observational (n=14)
Does a cuffless beat-to-beat blood pressure device accurately measure blood pressure compared to invasive and cuff-based methods in patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI?
Mean Difference: 34.3 (95% CI 27–41.5)
The tested cuffless beat-to-beat blood pressure device significantly overestimates blood pressure compared to invasive measurements and is not suitable for clinical or research use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support cuffless BtB BP monitoring in cath-lab settings; leaves open accuracy, calibration stability, and clinical adoption pending rigorous validation.
Moharram et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing coronary angiography or PCI (n=14). Cuffless beat-to-beat (BtB) blood pressure device (SOMNOtouch NIBP) vs. Invasive blood pressure (iBP) and brachial cuff blood pressure (cBP) was evaluated on Bias between BtB BP and iBP for systolic blood pressure (MD 34.3 mmHg, 95% CI 27.0-41.5). Beat-to-beat blood pressure measurement using a cuffless device significantly overestimated systolic invasive blood pressure by a mean difference of 34.3 mmHg (95% CI 27.0-41.5).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: