WATCH-BPM—Comparison of a WATCH-Type Blood Pressure Monitor with a Conventional Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor and Auscultatory Sphygmomanometry

Abstract

Background: Smart devices that are able to measure blood pressure (BP) are valuable for hypertension or heart failure management using digital technology. Data regarding their diagnostic accuracy in comparison to standard noninvasive measurement in accordance to Riva-Rocci are sparse. This study compared a wearable watch-type oscillometric BP monitor (Omron HeartGuide), a wearable watch-type infrared BP monitor (Smart Wear), a conventional ambulatory BP monitor, and auscultatory sphygmomanometry. Methods: Therefore, 159 consecutive patients (84 male, 75 female, mean age 64.33 ± 16.14 years) performed observed single measurements with the smart device compared to auscultatory sphygmomanometry (n = 109) or multiple measurements during 24 h compared to a conventional ambulatory BP monitor on the upper arm (n = 50). The two BP monitoring devices were simultaneously worn on the same arm throughout the monitoring period. In a subgroup of 50 patients, single measurements were also performed with an additional infrared smart device. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the difference and the mean of the oscillometric Omron HeartGuide and the conventional method for the single measurement was calculated for both systole (0.765) and diastole (0.732). This is exactly how the ICC was calculated for the individual mean values calculated over the 24 h long-term measurement of the individual patients for both systole (0.880) and diastole (0.829). The ICC between the infrared device and the conventional method was “bad” for SBP (0.329) and DBP (0.025). Therefore, no further long-term measurements were performed with the infrared device. Conclusion: The Omron HeartGuide device provided comparable BP values to the standard devices for single and long-term measurements. The infrared smart device failed to acquire valid measurement data.