Cuff BP has variable accuracy for measuring either brachial or aortic intra-arterial BP, and this adversely influences correct BP classification. These findings indicate that stronger accuracy standards for BP devices may improve cardiovascular risk management.

Self-home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended to guide clinical decisions on hypertension and is used worldwide for cardiovascular risk management. People usually make their own decisions when purchasing BP devices, which can be made online. If patients purchase nonvalidated devices (those not proven accurate according to internationally accepted standards), hypertension management may be based on inaccurate readings resulting in under- or over-diagnosis or treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the number, type, percentage validated, and cost of home BP devices available online. A search of online businesses selling devices for home BP monitoring was conducted. Multinational companies make worldwide deliveries, so searches were restricted to BP devices available for one nation (Australia) as an example of device availability through the global online marketplace. Validation status of BP devices was determined according to established protocols. Fifty nine online businesses, selling 972 unique BP devices were identified. These included 278 upper-arm cuff devices (18.3% validated), 162 wrist-cuff devices (8.0% validated), and 532 wrist-band wearables (0% validated). Most BP devices (92.4%) were stocked by international e-commerce businesses (eg, eBay, Amazon), but only 5.5% were validated. Validated cuff BP devices were more expensive than nonvalidated devices: median (interquartile range) of 101.1 (75.0–151.5) versus 67.4 (30.4–112.8) Australian Dollars. Nonvalidated BP devices dominate the online marketplace and are sold at lower cost than validated ones, which is a major barrier to accurate home BP monitoring and cardiovascular risk management. Before purchasing a BP device, people should check it has been validated at https://www.stridebp.org .

No abstract

Numerous devices purport to measure central (aortic) blood pressure (BP) as distinct from conventional brachial BP. This validation study aimed to determine the accuracy of the Sphygmocor Xcel cuff device (AtCor Medical, CardieX, Sydney, Australia) for measuring central BP. 296 patients (mean age 61±12 years) undergoing coronary angiography had simultaneous measurement of invasive central BP and noninvasive cuff-derived central BP using the Xcel cuff device (total n=558 individual comparisons). A subsample (n=151) also had invasive brachial BP measured. Methods were undertaken according to the Artery Society recommendations, and several calibration techniques to derive central systolic BP (SBP) were examined. Minimum acceptable error was ≤5±≤8 mm Hg. Central SBP was significantly underestimated, and with wide variability, when using the default calibration of brachial-cuff SBP and diastolic BP (DBP; mean difference±SD, −7.7±11.0 mm Hg). Similar variability was observed using other calibration methods (cuff 33% form-factor mean arterial pressure and DBP, −4.4±11.5 mm Hg; cuff 40% form-factor mean arterial pressure and DBP, 4.7±11.9 mm Hg; cuff oscillometric mean arterial pressure and DBP, −18.2±12.1 mm Hg). Only calibration with invasive central integrated mean arterial pressure and DBP was within minimal acceptable error (3.3±7.5 mm Hg). The difference between brachial-cuff SBP and invasive central SBP was 3.3±10.7 mm Hg. A subsample analysis to determine the accuracy of central-to-brachial SBP amplification showed this to be overestimated by the Xcel cuff device (mean difference 4.3±9.1 mm Hg, P =0.02). Irrespective of cuff calibration technique, the Sphygmocor Xcel cuff device does not meet the Artery Society accuracy criteria for noninvasive measurement of central BP.

Blood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined systematically and was the aim of this study. Cuff BP was compared with invasive aortic BP across decades of age (from 40 to 89 years) using individual-level data from 31 studies (1674 patients undergoing coronary angiography) and 22 different cuff BP devices (19 oscillometric, 1 automated auscultation, 2 mercury sphygmomanometry) from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium. Subjects were aged 64±11 years, and 32% female. Cuff systolic BP overestimated invasive aortic systolic BP in those aged 40 to 49 years, but with each older decade of age, there was a progressive shift toward increasing underestimation of aortic systolic BP ( P <0.0001). Conversely, cuff diastolic BP overestimated invasive aortic diastolic BP, and this progressively increased with increasing age ( P <0.0001). Thus, there was a progressive increase in cuff pulse pressure underestimation of invasive aortic PP with increasing decades of age ( P <0.0001). These age-related trends were observed across all categories of BP control. We conclude that cuff BP as an estimate of aortic BP was substantially influenced by increasing age, thus potentially exposing older people to greater chance for misdiagnosis of the true risk related to BP.