Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with wearable photoplethysmography: A method comparison study in high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery
Authors' conclusion
Blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor and the Biobeat chest monitor did not show clinically acceptable agreement either with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements or with blood pressure measurements from an oscillometric upper-arm cuff in high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery in an advanced postanaesthesia care unit.
Study context
- Population
- High-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery in an advanced PACU, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
- Participants
- 50 patients
- Exposure
- Biobeat wrist and chest monitors vs intra-arterial BP; wrist monitor vs oscillometric upper-arm cuff
- Outcome
- Agreement of Biobeat BP measurements with intra-arterial BP (and wrist monitor with oscillometric cuff): Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot, error grid analysis
Methodological detailsprospective, single-centre
- Prospective
- Single-centre
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Mean of the differences ± SD
3 ± 11 mmHg
95%-limits of agreement CI −19 to 25
Biobeat wrist monitor vs Intra-arterial BP · concordance rate 51%
Mean of the differences ± SD
3 ± 11 mmHg
95%-limits of agreement CI −17 to 24
Biobeat chest monitor vs Intra-arterial BP · concordance rate 61%
Mean of the differences ± SD
6 ± 11 mmHg
95%-limits of agreement CI −16 to 27
Biobeat wrist monitor vs Oscillometric upper-arm cuff · concordance rate 49%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →