To provide information about the clinical relevance of blood pressure (BP) measurement differences between a new smartphone application (OptiBP™) and the reference method (automated oscillometric technique) using a noninvasive brachial cuff in patients admitted to the emergency department. We simultaneously recorded three BP measurements using both the reference method and the novel OptiBP™ (test method), except when the inter-arm difference was > 10 mmHg BP. Each OptiBP™ measurement required 1-min and the subsequent reference method values were compared to the values obtained with OptiBP™ using a Bland-Altman analysis and error grid analysis. Among the 110 patients recruited, OptiBP™ BP values could be collected on 61 patients (55%) and were included in the statistical analysis. The mean of differences (95% limits of agreement) between the reference method and the test method were - 0.1(- 22.5 to 22.4 mmHg) for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), - 0.1(- 12.9 to 12.7 mmHg) for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) and - 0.3(- 18.1 to 17.4 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure (MAP). The proportions of measurements in risk zones A-E were 86.9%, 13.1%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for MAP and 89.3%, 10.7%, 0%, 0%, and 0% for SAP. In this pilot study conducted in stable and awake patients admitted to the emergency department, the absolute agreement between the OptiBP™ and the reference method was moderate. However, when BP measurements were made immediately after an initial calibration, error grid analysis showed that 100% of measurement differences between the OptiBP™ and reference method were categorized as no- or low-risk treatment decisions for all patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04121624.
Keywords: Arterial pressure; Hemodynamic; Hypertension; Hypotension; Smartphone.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.