A Comparison of Blood Pressure Data Obtained From Wearable, Ambulatory, and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Devices: Prospective Validation Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam ◽  
Ralph Maddison

BACKGROUND Blood pressure (BP) is an important marker for cardiovascular health. However, a person’s BP data cannot usually be obtained simultaneously from different sources. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to analyze and compare BP data obtained from 3 different sources, namely, wearable, ambulatory, and home BP monitoring devices. METHODS During recruitment, we recorded participants’ BP using a standardized digital BP monitoring device and simultaneously over 24 hours using wearable and ambulatory devices. In addition, participants’ BP was measured over 7 days using wearable and home BP monitoring devices. Data from the wearable BP monitoring devices were extracted. The 24-hour ambulatory BP data were downloaded from the device to a computer. Home BPs were recorded 3 times per day (in the morning, afternoon, and evening, at regular times convenient to the participants) for 7 days and on a BP sheet. RESULTS A total of 9090 BP measurements were collected from 20 healthy volunteer participants (females: n=10; males: n=10, mean age 20.3 years, SD 5.4 years). The mean (SD) systolic BP and diastolic BP values measured at enrollment were 112.35 (9.79) mm Hg and 73.75 (9.14) mm Hg, respectively. The 24-hour mean (SD) systolic BP and diastolic BP values measured using the wearable device were 125 (5) mm Hg and 77 (9) mm Hg, respectively. The 24-hour mean (SD) systolic BP and diastolic BP values recorded using the ambulatory device were 126 (10) mm Hg and 75 (6) mm Hg, respectively. The 7-day mean (SD) systolic BP and diastolic BP values measured using the wearable device were 125 (4) mm Hg and 77 (3) mm Hg, respectively. The 7-day mean (SD) systolic BP and diastolic BP values measured using the home device were 112 (10) mm Hg and 71 (8) mm Hg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our datasets serve as the basis for further studies where these data can be combined reasonably with data from similar studies to understand the impact of different devices on BP measurement. Moreover, the BP data acquired noninvasively from wearable, ambulatory, and home devices can be integrated with similar data from other studies to determine the utility of wearable BP monitoring devices in different groups of people.

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta James ◽  
Wei Lu ◽  
Jennifer Schnieder ◽  
Bimal R Shah

Background: Livongo’s Applied Health Signals Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Program (HBMP) offers patients a Bluetooth connected blood pressure cuff, hypertension (HTN) management education, and access to health coaches. Previous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of HBPM so the objective of this study was to also evaluate the impact on U.S. medical spending within the first year. Methods: People younger than 65 years with continuous enrollment in health benefits for the 12 months before and 12 months after launch of the HBMP and use of the program for at least three months were selected. Medical spending for those participants was compared to eligible but non-HBMP participant controls who were identified utilizing propensity score with nearest-neighbor matching methodology on age, gender, and pre-period medical spending with exact matching on Charlson Comorbidity Score Index in a 1:1 ratio. People with medical spending exceeding $50,000 monthly or $100,000 annually were excluded from the analysis. The HBPM participant baseline blood pressures were compared to BP values at 12-months to assess improvement in BP management. Mean medical spending based on the total allowed amounts per member per month (PMPM) was compared between the HBPM and non-HBPM groups using intention-to-treat difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis. Results: There were 1,417 HBPM participants with mean age of 51 years, 52% female, 64% with uncontrolled HTN (BP &gt = 130/80) at baseline, and mean pre-period medical spending of $490 PMPM. For participants with uncontrolled HTN, mean systolic and diastolic BP reductions were 14.2 mmHg and 10.1 mmHg, respectively, with 54% decreasing in HTN stage or considered controlled. The HBPM group had a 1% reduction in medical spending to $474 PMPM while the non-HBPM group had an 18% increase in medical spending from $410 PMPM to $486 PMPM resulting in a medical savings of $81 PMPM. The HBPM group also had a reduction of 33% in inpatient utilization and 14% in ED visits. Conclusion: HBPM participants experienced improved BP control and a reduction in total medical cost savings resulting in a positive return on investment. The main drivers of medical savings were a reduction in ED and inpatient hospital utilization.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric D Peterson ◽  
Roberta A James ◽  
Malcolm Barrett ◽  
Jennifer Schnieder ◽  
Bimal R Shah

Background: The Shelter-in-place response to the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the value of telemedicine and remote monitoring platforms like Livongo’s Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Program (HBMP) that utilizes a Bluetooth connected blood pressure cuff and access to coaches. The objective of this study was to understand the HBPM frequency and blood pressure trends during the pandemic for this high-risk group of people. Methods: Utilizing Livongo’s national repository of HBMP participants, we selected members with valid measurements between September 16, 2019 and June 15, 2020. The COVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University was used to identify the first date a COVID-19 case was identified in each state and county. The top 9 counties with the highest cumulative COVID-19 cases were selected for further evaluation. Weekly national, regional, state, and county number of BP checks, mean SBP and DBP readings, and percentage of people with BP >= 130/80, >=140/90, and >= 160/100 were evaluated. Results: There were 47,745 HBPM participants, age of 54 year, 47% female, mean baseline BP of 129/79. The national trend showed slight increases in SBP and DBP during March 2020 though BP monitoring frequencies seem unchanged. Figure 1 shows state SBP and DBP trends by region. Some of the variability in the states is due to top counties with cases. Cook County, IL had a mean (95% CI) SBP increase of 6.5 mmHg (7.8, 5.1) resulting in while New York City's mean SBP decresed to -1.4 mmHg (-0.1, -2.7). Conclusion: There is a lot of variation in regional trends on the impact of COVID-19 on BP, even for the 9 selected counties. Further study is required to understand the possible drivers of the trends, such as, medication adherence, exercise, and stress.


Author(s):  
Hemapriya L. ◽  
Nagaraj Desai ◽  
Ambarish Bhandiwad

Background: The use of automated blood pressure monitors in pregnancy has become increasingly popular, as more women tend to get involved in their healthcare. Not only does it reduce clinician visits, it also helps to eliminate the white coat hypertension.Methods: We conducted a prospective study in the antenatal department of JSS Medical College and Hospital, Mysuru; over a period of one year, from July 2016 to June 2017. The blood pressures of 50 women were recorded at four different periods of gestation using the conventional ‘Diamond mercury Sphygmomanometer’ versus the automated ‘Omron HEM 7130’ home BP monitor and compared.Results: The recordings of systolic blood pressure at home were consistently less than the office measurements at all periods of gestation. However, the difference was not statistically significant. The comparison of diastolic pressures revealed minimal variations between the mean of the office and home blood pressure recordings. The mean arterial pressure also revealed a similar trend.Conclusions: Self-monitoring of blood pressure is a feasible and acceptable option to pregnant women. It might make antenatal care more effective, but we need further research to establish safety and efficacy, the impact on women and health professionals, and how best to use the results.


Author(s):  
Audes D.M. Feitosa ◽  
Marco A. Mota‐Gomes ◽  
Weimar S. Barroso ◽  
Roberto D. Miranda ◽  
Eduardo C.D. Barbosa ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document