Practical Application of a New Cuffless Blood Pressure Measurement Method

It would be useful to develop a reliable method for the cuffless measurement of blood pressure (BP), as such a method could be made available anytime and anywhere for the effective screening and monitoring of arterial hypertension. The purpose of this study is to evaluate blood pressure measurements through a CardioQVARK device in clinical practice in different patient groups.

Methods: This study involved 167 patients aged 31 to 88 years (mean 64.2 ± 7.8 years) with normal blood pressure, high blood pressure, and compensated high blood pressure. During each session, three routine blood pressure measurements with intervals of 30 s were taken using a sphygmomanometer with an appropriate cuff size, and the mean value was selected for comparison. The measurements were carried out by two observers trained at the same time with a reference sphygmomanometer using a Y-shaped connector. In the minute following the last cuff-based measurements, an electrocardiogram (ECG) with an I-lead and a photoplethysmocardiogram were recorded simultaneously for 3 min with the CardioQVARK device. We compared the systolic and diastolic BP obtained from a cuff-based mercury sphygmomanometer and smartphone-case-based BP device: the CardioQVARK monitor. A statistical analysis plan was developed using the IEEE Standard for Wearable Cuffless Blood Pressure Devices. Bland-Altman plots were used to estimate the precision of cuffless measurements.

Results: The mean difference between the values defined by CardioQVARK and the cuff-based sphygmomanometer for systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 0.31 ± 3.61, while that for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was 0.44 ± 3.76. The mean absolute difference (MAD) for SBP was 3.44 ± 2.5 mm Hg, and that for DBP was 3.21 ± 2.82 mm Hg. In the subgroups, the smallest error (less than 3 mm Hg) was observed in the prehypertension group, with a slightly larger error (up to 4 mm Hg) found among patients with a normal blood pressure and stage 1 hypertension. The largest error was found in the stage 2 hypertension group (4-5.5 mm Hg). The largest error was 4.2 mm Hg in the high blood pressure group. We, therefore, did not record an error in excess of 7 mmHg, the upper boundary considered acceptable in the IEEE recommendations. We also did not reach a mean error of 5 mmHg, the upper boundary considered acceptable according to the very recent ESH recommendations. At the same time, in all groups of patients, the systolic blood pressure was determined with an error of less than 5 mm Hg in more than 80% of patients. While this study shows that the CardioQVARK device meets the standards of IEEE, the Bland-Altman analysis indicates that the cuffless measurement of diastolic blood pressure has significant bias. The difference was very small and unlikely to be of clinical relevance for the individual patient, but it may well have epidemiological relevance on a population level. Therefore, the CardioQVARK device, while being worthwhile for monitoring patients over time, may not be suitable for screening purposes. Cuffless blood pressure measurement devices are emerging as a convenient and tolerable alternative to cuff-based devices. However, there are several limitations to cuffless blood pressure measurement devices that should be considered. For instance, this study showed a high proportion of measurements with a measurement error of <5 mmHg, while detecting a small, although statistically significant, bias in the measurement of diastolic blood pressure. This suggests that this device may not be suitable for screening purposes. However, its value for monitoring BP over time is confirmed. Furthermore, and most importantly, the easy measurement method and the device portability (integrated in a smartphone) may increase the self-awareness of hypertensive patients and, potentially, lead to an improved adherence to their treatment.

Conclusion: The cuffless blood pressure technology developed in this study was tested in accordance with the IEEE protocol and showed great precision in patient groups with different blood pressure ranges. This approach, therefore, has the potential to be applied in clinical practice.