scholarly journals Accuracy of blood-pressure monitors owned by patients with hypertension (ACCU-RATE study): a cross-sectional, observational study in central England

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (697) ◽  
pp. e548-e554
Author(s):  
James A Hodgkinson ◽  
Mei-Man Lee ◽  
Siobhan Milner ◽  
Peter Bradburn ◽  
Richard Stevens ◽  
...  

BackgroundHome blood-pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended in guidelines and is increasingly popular with patients and health professionals, but the accuracy of patients’ own monitors in real-world use is not known.AimTo assess the accuracy of home BP monitors used by people with hypertension, and to investigate factors affecting accuracy.Design and settingCross-sectional, observational study in urban and suburban settings in central England.MethodPatients (n = 6891) on the hypertension register at seven practices in the West Midlands, England, were surveyed to ascertain whether they owned a BP monitor and wanted it tested. Monitor accuracy was compared with a calibrated reference device at 50 mmHg intervals between 0–280/300 mmHg (static pressure test); a difference from the reference monitor of +/−3 mmHg at any interval was considered a failure. Cuff performance was also assessed. Results were analysed by frequency of use, length of time in service, make and model, monitor validation status, purchase price, and any previous testing.ResultsIn total, 251 (76%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 71 to 80%) of 331 tested devices passed all tests (monitors and cuffs), and 86% (CI] = 82 to 90%) passed the static pressure test; deficiencies were, primarily, because of monitors overestimating BP. A total of 40% of testable monitors were not validated. The pass rate on the static pressure test was greater in validated monitors (96%, 95% CI = 94 to 98%) versus unvalidated monitors (64%, 95% CI = 58 to 69%), those retailing for >£10 (90%, 95% CI = 86 to 94%), those retailing for ≤£10 (66%, 95% CI = 51 to 80%), those in use for ≤4 years (95%, 95% CI = 91 to 98%), and those in use for >4 years (74%, 95% CI = 67 to 82%). All in all, 12% of cuffs failed.ConclusionPatients’ own BP monitor failure rate was similar to that demonstrated in studies performed in professional settings, although cuff failure was more frequent. Clinicians can be confident of the accuracy of patients’ own BP monitors if the devices are validated and ≤4 years old.

2021 ◽  
pp. dtb-2021-000055

AbstractOverview of: Hodgkinson JA, Lee MM, Milner S, et al. Accuracy of blood-pressure monitors owned by patients with hypertension (ACCU-RATE study): a cross-sectional, observational study in central England. Br J Gen Pract. 2020;70:e548–e554.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1913
Author(s):  
Tomonori Kimura ◽  
Emi Ushigome ◽  
Yoshitaka Hashimoto ◽  
Naoko Nakanishi ◽  
Masahide Hamaguchi ◽  
...  

The association between blood pressure measured at home and handgrip strength in patients with diabetes has not been investigated. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess this association among patients with type 2 diabetes. In this cross-sectional study, 157 patients with type 2 diabetes underwent muscle tests and morning and evening blood-pressure measurements at home in triplicate for 14 consecutive days throughout the study period. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to analyze the relationship between home blood-pressure parameters and handgrip strength. The average age and hemoglobin A1c of the patients were 70.5 years and 7.1%, respectively. Morning diastolic blood pressure of [β (95% confidence interval; CI): 0.20 (0.03, 0.37)] was associated with handgrip strength in men, while morning systolic blood pressure of [−0.09 (−0.15, −0.04)], morning pulse pressure of [−0.14 (−0.21, −0.08)], and evening pulse pressure of [−0.12 (−0.19, −0.04)] were associated with handgrip strength in women. Home-measured blood pressure was associated with handgrip strength. Sex differences were found in the relationship between home blood-pressure parameters and handgrip strength.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. e0206945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junko Kuwabara ◽  
Koichiro Kuwahara ◽  
Yoshihiro Kuwabara ◽  
Shinji Yasuno ◽  
Yasuaki Nakagawa ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. iii98-iii98
Author(s):  
Akihiro Sawai ◽  
Yosinari Yasuda ◽  
Suzuki Susumu ◽  
Sawako Kato ◽  
Shoichi Naruyama

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e0155677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Ruzicka ◽  
Ayub Akbari ◽  
Eva Bruketa ◽  
Jeanne Françoise Kayibanda ◽  
Claude Baril ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document