Document Detail

A novel and simple protocol for the validation of home blood pressure monitors in clinical practice.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22797517     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
BACKGROUNDS: Although the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for the validation of blood pressure (BP) measuring devices has simplified the validation protocol, it is still not feasible for use in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: We sought to devise a method for validating individual home blood pressure (HBP) monitors that is simple enough for use in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled 92 hypertensive patients (mean age: 63.2±14.6 years) from the hypertension clinic at the Columbia University Medical Center. Five sequential same-arm BP readings were recorded by a physician: first (D1), second (D2), and fourth (D3) using an HBP device; the third (M1) and fifth (M2) readings were taken manually using a mercury sphygmomanometer. Analyses focused on the absolute values of the differences in the BP values. In step 1, differences D2-M1, M1-D3, and D3-M2 were calculated and if two of three BP differences were within 5 mmHg (or 10 mmHg), the monitor 'passed'. When a monitor failed step 1, if either the difference between M1 and the average of D2 and D3, or the difference between D3 and the average of M1 and M2 was within 5 mmHg (or 10 mmHg), it was judged to have 'passed'. RESULTS: We used only systolic blood pressure to simplify the protocol. In step 1, the number of monitors in which two of three BP differences were within 5 mmHg was 43 (46.7%) and those within 10 mmHg was 73 (79.4%) of 92 total monitors. Of those that failed the 5 mmHg criterion of step 1 (N=49), 20 passed step 2. Therefore, a total of 63 monitors (68.5%) fulfilled the 5 mmHg criteria. Of 19 monitors that failed step 1 using the 10 mmHg criterion, 12 fulfilled the 10 mmHg criterion for step 2, resulting in 85 of the 92 (92.4%) monitors passing the test. CONCLUSION: This simplified validation protocol may be of value for the routine evaluation of HBP monitors in clinical practice.
Kazuo Eguchi; Sujith Kuruvilla; Joji Ishikawa; Joseph E Schwartz; Thomas G Pickering
Related Documents :
22809197 - Effect of high-pressure processing and thermal treatment on quality attributes and nutr...
22516427 - Clinical features and racial/ethnic differences among the 3020 participants in the seco...
22427857 - Hypertension in sub-saharan africa: cross-sectional surveys in four rural and urban com...
1954677 - Nucleotide precursors modify the effects of isoproterenol. studies on heart function an...
23999037 - Results from a 12 months, randomized, clinical trial comparing an olmesartan/amlodipine...
22629667 - Cardiovascular effects of n-butylscopolammonium bromide and xylazine in horses.
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2012-7-11
Journal Detail:
Title:  Blood pressure monitoring     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1473-5725     ISO Abbreviation:  -     Publication Date:  2012 Jul 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-7-16     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9606438     Medline TA:  Blood Press Monit     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
aDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, Japan bCenter for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Division of General Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York cDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Invasive blood pressure monitoring systems in the ICU: influence of the blood-conserving device on t...
Next Document:  Gut microbiota composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly.