Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVischer, Annina S.
dc.contributor.authorRosania, Jana
dc.contributor.authorSocrates, Thenral
dc.contributor.authorBlaschke, Christina
dc.contributor.authorEckstein, Jens
dc.contributor.authorProust, Yara-Maria
dc.contributor.authorBonnier, Guillaume
dc.contributor.authorProença, Martin
dc.contributor.authorLemay, Mathieu
dc.contributor.authorBurkard, Thilo
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-21T16:10:18Z
dc.date.available2022-07-21T16:10:18Z
dc.date.issued2022-02-13
dc.identifier.citationDiagnostics, vol. 12 (3), pp. 749
dc.identifier.issn2075-4418
dc.identifier.urihttps://yoda.csem.ch/handle/20.500.12839/1036
dc.description.abstract(1) Background: New cuffless technologies attempting blood-pressure measurements (BPM) offer possibilities to improve hypertension awareness and control. The aim of this study was to compare a smartphone application (app)-based algorithm with office BPM (OBPM). (2) Methods: We included consecutive patients with an indication for ambulatory BPM. The smartphone app (RIVA digital) acquired the pulse wave in the fingers’ arterial bed using the phone’s camera and estimated BP based on photoplethysmographic (PPG) waveforms. Measurements were alternatingly taken with an oscillometric cuff-based device and smartphone BPM (AppBP) on two consecutive days. AppBP were calibrated to the first OBPM. Each AppBP was compared to its CuffBP (mean of the previous/following OBPM). (3) Results: 50 participants were included, resulting in 50 AppBP values on Day 1 and 33 on Day 2 after exclusion of 225 AppBP due to insufficient quality. The mean ± SD of the differences between AppBP and CuffBP was 0.7 ± 9.4/1.0 ± 4.5 mmHg (p-value 0.739/0.201) on Day 1 and 2.6 ± 8.2/1.3 ± 4.1 mmHg (p-value 0.106/0.091) on Day 2 for systolic/diastolic values, respectively. There were no significant differences between the deviations on Day 1 and Day 2 (p-value 0.297/0.533 for systolic/diastolic values). Overall, there were 10 (12%) systolic measurement pairs differing by >15 mmHg. (4) Conclusions: In this pilot evaluation, the RIVA Digital app shows promising results when compared to oscillometric cuff-based measurements, especially regarding diastolic values. Its differences between AppBP–CuffBP have a good stability one day after calibration. Before clinical use, signal acquisition needs improvement and the algorithm needs to undergo formal validation against a gold-standard BPM method.
dc.titleComparability of a Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Application with Conventional Measurements—A Pilot Study
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.type.csemdivisionsDiv-E
dc.type.csemresearchareasDigital Health
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/12/3/749
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/diagnostics12030749


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Research Publications
    The “Research Publications” collection provides bibliographic information for scientific papers including conference proceedings and presentations.

Show simple item record