Wearable cuffless blood pressure monitoring devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Mohammed Shariful Islam,Clara K Chow,Reza Daryabeygikhotbehsara,Narayan Subedi,Jonathan Rawstorn,Teketo Tegegne,Chandan Karmakar,Muhammad U Siddiqui,Gavin Lambert,Ralph Maddison,Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztac021
2022-05-02
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
Abstract:Abstract Aims High blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential solutions; however, little is known about their validity and utility. We aimed to systematically review the validity, features and clinical use of wearable cuffless BP devices. Methods and results We searched MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore and the Cochrane Database till December 2019 for studies that reported validating cuffless BP devices. We extracted information about study characteristics, device features, validation processes, and clinical applications. Devices were classified according to their functions and features. We defined devices with a mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) biases of <5 mmHg as valid as a consensus. Our definition of validity did not include assessment of device measurement precision, which is assessed by standard deviation of the mean difference—a critical component of ISO protocol validation criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to summarise the mean biases for SBP and DBP across studies. Of the 430 studies identified, 16 studies (15 devices, 974 participants) were selected. The majority of devices (81.3%) used photoplethysmography to estimate BP against a reference device; other technologies included tonometry, auscultation and electrocardiogram. In addition to BP and heart rate, some devices also measured night-time BP (n = 5), sleep monitoring (n = 3), oxygen saturation (n = 3), temperature (n = 2) and electrocardiogram (n = 3). Eight devices showed mean biases of <5 mmHg for SBP and DBP compared with a reference device and three devices were commercially available. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the wearable and reference devices for SBP (pooled mean difference = 3.42 mmHg, 95% CI: −2.17, 9.01, I2 95.4%) and DBP (pooled mean = 1.16 mmHg, 95% CI: −1.26, 3.58, I2 87.1%). Conclusion Several cuffless BP devices are currently available using different technologies, offering the potential for continuous BP monitoring. The variation in standards and validation protocols limited the comparability of findings across studies and the identification of the most accurate device. Challenges such as validation using standard protocols and in real-life settings must be overcome before they can be recommended for uptake into clinical practice.