Comparison of two bioelectrical impedance analysis devices with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of body composition.

We compared a 4-limb bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) system, HBF 359 (Omron), and a 2-limb foot-to-foot device, BC 532 (Tanita), with the standard dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) methods for the measurement of body fat percentage (BF), skeletal muscle mass percentage (SMM, or fat-free mass [FFM] for BC 532), and visceral fat level (VF). Body composition was measured in 200 healthy volunteers (100 men and 100 women, mean age 48 years) by HBF 359 and BC 532 and by DXA and MRI. The agreement was assessed by correlation analysis and paired t-test. The correlation coefficients between BIA and DXA or MRI ranged from 0.71 to 0.89 for BF, SMM, and VF by HBF 359 and from 0.77 to 0.90 for BF, FFM, and VF by BC 532 in all subjects and in men and women separately (p < 0.001 for all). Compared with DXA, HBF 359 significantly (p < 0.001) underestimated BF by -5.8% in men and -9.6% in women. Compared with MRI, the corresponding underestimatons (negative) or overestimations (positive) by HBF 359 in men and women were, respectively, +1.9% (p = 0.02) and +1.7% (p = 0.10) for SMM, and +13.3% (p < 0.001) and -8.5% (p = 0.006), for VF. The corresponding values by BC 532 in men and women were -10.7 and -6.2% for BF, -1.4 and -2.5% for FFM, and +20.4 and -18.0% for VF. The BIA devices are accurate in the estimation of body composition, especially skeletal muscle mass or FFM.

Validation of the Health & Life HL868BA blood pressure monitor for home blood pressure monitoring according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the automated Health & Life oscillometric upper arm blood pressure monitor HL868BA for home blood pressure monitoring according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for blood pressure measuring devices in adults. METHOD: Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were sequentially measured in 33 adult Chinese using a mercury sphygmomanometer (two observers) and the HL868BA device (one supervisor). Ninety-nine pairs of comparisons were obtained from 15 participants in phase 1 and further 18 participants in phase 2 of the validation study. Data analysis was performed using the ESHIP Analyzer. RESULTS: The HL868BA device successfully passed phase 1 of the validation study with a number of absolute differences between device and observers within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg for at least 31/45, 42/45, and 44/45 measurements (required 25, 35, and 40, respectively), respectively. The device also achieved the targets for phase 2.1, with 68/99, 91/99, and 95/99 differences within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg, respectively, for systolic blood pressure, and with 71/99, 88/99, and 94/99 within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg, respectively, for diastolic blood pressure. In phase 2.2, 22 and 28 participants had at least two of the three device-observers differences within 5 mmHg (required > or = 22) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Health & Life upper arm blood pressure monitor HL868BA can be recommended for home use in adults.