Blood pressure · 2022
Accuracy of blood pressure measurement across BMI categories using the OptiBP™ mobile application.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Caillat Mary, Degott Jean, Wuerzner Arlene, Proençain Martin, Bonnier Guillaume, Knebel Jean-François, Stoll Chloé, Christen Urvan, Durgnat Virginie, Hofmann Gregory, Burnier Michel, Wuerzner Grégoire, Schoettker Patrick
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Obesity is a clear risk factor for hypertension. Blood pressure (BP) measurement in obese patients may be biased by cuff size and upper arm shape which may affect the accuracy of measurements. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the OptiBP smartphone application for three different body mass index (BMI) categories (normal, overweight and obese).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with a wide range of BP and BMI were recruited at Lausanne University Hospital's hypertension clinic in Switzerland. OptiBP estimated BP by recording an optical signal reflecting light from the participants' fingertips into a smartphone camera. Age, sex and BP distribution were collected to fulfil the AAMI/ESH/ISO universal standards. Both auscultatory BP references and OptiBP BP were measured and compared using the simultaneous opposite arms method, as described in the 81060-2:2018 ISO norm. Subgroup analyses were performed for each BMI category.
RESULTS: We analyzed 414 recordings from 95 patients: 34 were overweight and 15 were obese. The OptiBP application had a performance acceptance rate of 82%. The mean and standard deviation (SD) differences between the optical BP estimations and the auscultatory reference rates (criterion 1) were respected in all subgroups: SBP mean value was 2.08 (SD 7.58); 1.32 (6.44); -2.29 (5.62) respectively in obese, overweight and normal weight subgroup. For criterion 2, which investigates the precision errors on an individual level, the threshold for systolic BP in the obese group was slightly above the requirement for this criterion.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the OptiBP application is easily applicable to overweight and obese participants. Differences between the reference measure and the OptiBP estimation were within ISO limits (criterion 1). In obese participants, the SD of mean error was outside criterion 2 limits. Whether auscultatory measurement, due to arm morphology or the OptiBP is associated with increasing bias in obese still needs to be studied.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with a wide range of BP and BMI were recruited at Lausanne University Hospital's hypertension clinic in Switzerland. OptiBP estimated BP by recording an optical signal reflecting light from the participants' fingertips into a smartphone camera. Age, sex and BP distribution were collected to fulfil the AAMI/ESH/ISO universal standards. Both auscultatory BP references and OptiBP BP were measured and compared using the simultaneous opposite arms method, as described in the 81060-2:2018 ISO norm. Subgroup analyses were performed for each BMI category.
RESULTS: We analyzed 414 recordings from 95 patients: 34 were overweight and 15 were obese. The OptiBP application had a performance acceptance rate of 82%. The mean and standard deviation (SD) differences between the optical BP estimations and the auscultatory reference rates (criterion 1) were respected in all subgroups: SBP mean value was 2.08 (SD 7.58); 1.32 (6.44); -2.29 (5.62) respectively in obese, overweight and normal weight subgroup. For criterion 2, which investigates the precision errors on an individual level, the threshold for systolic BP in the obese group was slightly above the requirement for this criterion.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the OptiBP application is easily applicable to overweight and obese participants. Differences between the reference measure and the OptiBP estimation were within ISO limits (criterion 1). In obese participants, the SD of mean error was outside criterion 2 limits. Whether auscultatory measurement, due to arm morphology or the OptiBP is associated with increasing bias in obese still needs to be studied.