PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
背景：能够测量血压（BP）的智能设备对于使用数字技术进行高血压或心力衰竭管理很有价值。与根据Riva-Rocci进行的标准无创测量相比，有关其诊断准确性的数据很少。这项研究比较了可穿戴手表型示波BP监测仪（OmronHeartGuide），可穿戴手表型红外BP监视器(智能穿戴)，传统的动态血压监测仪，和听诊血压计。
方法：因此，159名连续患者（84名男性，75名女性，平均年龄64.33±16.14岁）与听诊式血压计（n=109）相比，使用智能设备进行了观察的单次测量，或者与上臂的常规动态BP监测器（n=50）相比，在24小时内进行了多次测量。在整个监测期间，两个BP监测设备同时佩戴在同一手臂上。在50名患者的亚组中，还使用额外的红外智能设备进行了单次测量。
结果：计算了收缩期（0.765）和舒张期（0.732）的示波OmronHeartGuide和常规方法的差异与平均值之间的组内相关系数（ICC）。这正是在对个体患者的收缩期(0.880)和舒张期(0.829)的24小时长期测量中计算的个体平均值的ICC的计算方式。红外设备与常规方法之间的ICC对于SBP（0.329）和DBP（0.025）为“坏”。因此,没有使用红外设备进行进一步的长期测量。
结论：OmronHeartGuide装置为单次和长期测量提供了与标准装置相当的BP值。红外智能设备获取有效测量数据失败。
方法：因此，159名连续患者（84名男性，75名女性，平均年龄64.33±16.14岁）与听诊式血压计（n=109）相比，使用智能设备进行了观察的单次测量，或者与上臂的常规动态BP监测器（n=50）相比，在24小时内进行了多次测量。在整个监测期间，两个BP监测设备同时佩戴在同一手臂上。在50名患者的亚组中，还使用额外的红外智能设备进行了单次测量。
结果：计算了收缩期（0.765）和舒张期（0.732）的示波OmronHeartGuide和常规方法的差异与平均值之间的组内相关系数（ICC）。这正是在对个体患者的收缩期(0.880)和舒张期(0.829)的24小时长期测量中计算的个体平均值的ICC的计算方式。红外设备与常规方法之间的ICC对于SBP（0.329）和DBP（0.025）为“坏”。因此,没有使用红外设备进行进一步的长期测量。
结论：OmronHeartGuide装置为单次和长期测量提供了与标准装置相当的BP值。红外智能设备获取有效测量数据失败。
