Validation of BP devices QardioArm in the general population and Omron M6 Comfort in type II diabetic patients according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP).

BACKGROUND

Following the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP) Revision 2010, QardioArm and Omron M6 Comfort IT oscillometric devices were evaluated in the general population and in patients with type II diabetes, respectively, for self-blood pressure (BP) measurement.

METHODS

Both devices, QardioArm and Omron M6 Comfort, measure BP at the brachial level. The ESH-IP Revision 2010 includes a total number of 33 subjects. For each measure, the difference between observer and device BP values was calculated. In all, 99 pairs of BP differences are classified into three categories (≤5, ≤10, and ≤15 mmHg). The protocol procedures were followed precisely.

RESULTS

QardioArm and Omron M6 Comfort fulfilled the requirements of the ESH-IP and passed the validation process successfully. For QardioArm, a total of 69 out of 99 comparisons for systolic blood pressure (SBP) showed an absolute difference within 5 mmHg and 82 out of 99 for diastolic blood pressure (DBP). As for Omron M6 Comfort, a total of 83 out of 99 comparisons for SBP showed an absolute difference within 5 mmHg and 77 out of 99 for DBP. The mean differences between the device and mercury readings were 0.7±5.9 mmHg for SBP and 0.3±4.1 mmHg for DBP for QardioArm and -1.4±4.7 mmHg for SBP and -2.1±4.3 mmHg for DBP for Omron M6 Comfort. With regard to part 2 of ESH-IP 2010, 27 out of 33 subjects had a minimum of two out of three measurements within 5 mmHg difference for SBP and 31 out of 33 subjects for DBP for the QardioArm, and 29 out of 33 patients had a minimum of two out of three measurements within 5 mmHg difference for SBP and 26 out of 33 patients for DBP for Omron M6 Comfort.

CONCLUSION

QardioArm and Omron M6 Comfort readings differing from the mercury standard by <5, 10, and 15 mmHg fulfill the ESH-IP Revision 2010 requirements. Consequently, these two devices are suitable for use in the general population and non-insulin-dependent type II diabetic patients, respectively.