Evaluation of a novel optical smartphone blood pressure application: a method comparison study against invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring in intensive care unit patients

Smartphone-Based versus Non-Invasive Automatic Oscillometric Brachial Cuff Blood Pressure Measurements: A Prospective Method Comparison Volunteer Study

Introduction: Mobile health diagnostics have demonstrated effectiveness in detecting and managing chronic diseases. This method comparison study aims to assess the accuracy and precision of the previously evaluated OptiBP™ technology over a four-week study period. This device uses optical signals recorded by placing a patient's fingertip on a smartphone's camera to estimate blood pressure (BP). Methods: In adult participants without cardiac arrhythmias and minimal interarm blood pressure difference (systolic arterial pressure (SAP) < 15 mmHg or diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) < 10 mmHg), three pairs of 30 s BP measurements with the OptiBP™ (test method) were simultaneously compared using three pairs of measurements with the non-invasive oscillometric brachial cuff (reference method) on the opposite arm over a period of four consecutive weeks at a rate of two measurements per week (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). The agreement of BP values between the two technologies was analyzed using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses. The performance of the smartphone application was investigated using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) definitions, which require the bias ± standard deviation (SD) between two technologies to be lower than 5 ± 8 mmHg. Results: Among the 65 eligible volunteers, 53 participants had adequate OptiBP™ BP values. In 12 patients, no OptiBP™ BP could be measured due to inadequate signals. Only nine participants had known chronic arterial hypertension and 76% of those patients were treated. The mean bias ± SD between both technologies was -1.4 mmHg ± 10.1 mmHg for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), 0.2 mmHg ± 6.5 mmHg for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP) and -0.5 mmHg ± 6.9 mmHg for mean arterial pressure (MAP). Error grid analyses indicated that 100% of the pairs of BP measurements were located in zones A (no risk) and B (low risk). Conclusions: In a cohort of volunteers, we observed an acceptable agreement between BP values obtained with the OptiBPTM and those obtained with the reference method over a four-week period. The OptiBPTM fulfills the ISO standards for MAP and DAP (but not SAP). The error grid analyses showed that 100% measurements were located in risk zones A and B. Despite the need for some technological improvements, this application may become an important tool to measure BP in the future.

Accuracy of blood pressure measurement across BMI categories using the OptiBP™ mobile application

PURPOSE

Obesity is a clear risk factor for hypertension. Blood pressure (BP) measurement in obese patients may be biased by cuff size and upper arm shape which may affect the accuracy of measurements. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the OptiBP smartphone application for three different body mass index (BMI) categories (normal, overweight and obese).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants with a wide range of BP and BMI were recruited at Lausanne University Hospital's hypertension clinic in Switzerland. OptiBP estimated BP by recording an optical signal reflecting light from the participants' fingertips into a smartphone camera. Age, sex and BP distribution were collected to fulfil the AAMI/ESH/ISO universal standards. Both auscultatory BP references and OptiBP BP were measured and compared using the simultaneous opposite arms method, as described in the 81060-2:2018 ISO norm. Subgroup analyses were performed for each BMI category.

RESULTS

We analyzed 414 recordings from 95 patients: 34 were overweight and 15 were obese. The OptiBP application had a performance acceptance rate of 82%. The mean and standard deviation (SD) differences between the optical BP estimations and the auscultatory reference rates (criterion 1) were respected in all subgroups: SBP mean value was 2.08 (SD 7.58); 1.32 (6.44); -2.29 (5.62) respectively in obese, overweight and normal weight subgroup. For criterion 2, which investigates the precision errors on an individual level, the threshold for systolic BP in the obese group was slightly above the requirement for this criterion.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the OptiBP application is easily applicable to overweight and obese participants. Differences between the reference measure and the OptiBP estimation were within ISO limits (criterion 1). In obese participants, the SD of mean error was outside criterion 2 limits. Whether auscultatory measurement, due to arm morphology or the OptiBP is associated with increasing bias in obese still needs to be studied.