Can Validated Wrist Devices With Position Sensors Replace Arm Devices for Self-Home Blood Pressure Monitoring? A Randomized Crossover Trial Using Ambulatory Monitoring as Reference

• Published in: American journal of hypertension 2008-07, Vol.21 (7), p.753-758
• Main Authors: Stergiou, George S., Christodoulakis, George R., Nasothimiou, Efthimia G., Giovas, Periklis P., Kalogeropoulos, Petros G.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Arm - blood supply; Arterial hypertension. Arterial hypotension; Biological and medical sciences; Blood and lymphatic vessels; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards; Blood Pressure Monitors; Cardiology. Vascular system; Clinical manifestations. Epidemiology. Investigative techniques. Etiology; Cross-Over Studies; Equipment Design; Female; Humans; Hypertension - physiopathology; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Oscillometry; Reproducibility of Results; Wrist - blood supply
• ISSN: 0895-7061; 1941-7225; 1879-1905
• DOI: 10.1038/ajh.2008.176

Background Electronic devices that measure blood pressure (BP) at the arm level are regarded as more accurate than wrist devices and are preferred for home BP (HBP) monitoring. Recently, wrist devices with position sensors have been successfully validated using established protocols. This study assessed whether HBP values measured with validated wrist devices are sufficiently reliable to be used for making patient-related decisions in clinical practice. Methods This randomized crossover study compared HBP measurements taken using validated wrist devices (wrist-HBP, Omron R7 with position sensor) with those taken using arm devices (arm-HBP, Omron 705IT), and also with measurements of awake ambulatory BP (ABP, SpaceLabs), in 79 subjects (36 men and 43 women) with hypertension. The mean age of the study population was 56.7 ± 11.8 years, and 33 of the subjects were not under treatment for hypertension. Results The average arm-HBP was higher than the average wrist-HBP (mean difference, systolic 5.2 ± 9.1 mm Hg, P < 0.001, and diastolic 2.2 ± 6.7, P < 0.01). Twenty-seven subjects (34%) had a ≥10 mm Hg difference between systolic wrist-HBP and arm-HBP and twelve subjects (15%) showed similar levels of disparity in diastolic HBP readings. Strong correlations were found between arm-HBP and wrist-HBP (r 0.74/0.74, systolic/diastolic, P < 0.0001). However, ABP was more strongly correlated with arm-HBP (r 0.73/0.76) than with wrist-HBP (0.55/0.69). The wrist–arm HBP difference was associated with systolic ABP (r 0.34) and pulse pressure (r 0.29), but not with diastolic ABP, sex, age, arm circumference, and wrist circumference. Conclusions There might be important differences in HBP measured using validated wrist devices with position sensor vs. arm devices, and these could impact decisions relating to the patient in clinical practice.Measurements taken using arm devices are more closely related to ABP values than those recorded by wrist devices. More research is needed before recommending the widespread use of wrist monitors in clinical practice.