Comparison of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BPM-100(Beta) ) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer.

BACKGROUND: To compare directly the accuracy of the BPM-100(Beta) monitor (an automated oscillometric blood pressure device) with standard auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometry. DESIGN: The BPM-100(Beta) was connected in parallel via a T-tube to a mercury sphygmomanometer. The BPM-100(Beta) and two trained observers (blinded from each other and from the BPM-100(Beta)) measured the sitting blood pressure simultaneously. METHODS: Means, standard deviations and ranges were calculated for all the demographic data: age, arm size, heart rate and blood pressure. The agreement between the BPM-100(Beta) and the mean of two observers (the reference) was determined and expressed as the mean +/- SD, as well as the percentage of differences falling within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg. RESULTS: Of the 92 subjects recruited, 85 (92.4%) met the inclusion criteria, and 391 sets of sitting blood pressure and heart rate measurements were available for analysis. The mean difference between the BPM-100(Beta) monitor and the reference was -0.62 +/- 6.96 mmHg for systolic blood pressure, -1.48 +/- 4.80 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure and 0.14 +/- 1.86 beats/min for heart rate. The only limitation of the device was its tendency to underestimate higher systolic blood pressures. This problem has been addressed by a minor change in the algorithm (see the companion publication, Blood Press Monit, 6, 161-165, 2001). CONCLUSION: The BPM-100(Beta) is an accurate blood pressure monitor for the office setting, meeting all requirements of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and achieving an 'A' grade according to the British Hypertension Society protocol.

Validation of a new algorithm for the BPM-100 electronic oscillometric office blood pressure monitor.

BACKGROUND: To test the accuracy of a new algorithm for the BPM-100, an automated oscillometric blood pressure (BP) monitor, using stored data from an independently conducted validation trial comparing the BPM-100(Beta) with a mercury sphygmomanometer. DESIGN: Raw pulse wave and cuff pressure data were stored electronically using embedded software in the BPM-100(Beta), during the validation trial. The 391 sets of measurements were separated objectively into two subsets. A subset of 136 measurements was used to develop a new algorithm to enhance the accuracy of the device when reading higher systolic pressures. The larger subset of 255 measurements (three readings for 85 subjects) was used as test data to validate the accuracy of the new algorithm. METHODS: Differences between the new algorithm BPM-100 and the reference (mean of two observers) were determined and expressed as the mean difference +/- SD, plus the percentage of measurements within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg. RESULTS: The mean difference between the BPM-100 and reference systolic BP was -0.16 +/- 5.13 mmHg, with 73.7% < or = 5 mmHg, 94.9% < or = 10 mmHg and 98.8% < or = 15 mmHg. The mean difference between the BPM-100 and reference diastolic BP was -1.41 +/- 4.67 mmHg, with 78.4% < or = 5 mmHg, 92.5% < or = 10 mmHg, and 99.2% < or = 15 mmHg. These data improve upon that of the BPM-100(Beta) and pass the AAMI standard, and 'A' grade BHS protocol. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates a new method for developing and testing a change in an algorithm for an oscillometric BP monitor utilizing collected and stored electronic data and demonstrates that the new algorithm meets the AAMI standard and BHS protocol.