Moritz Flick, Leon Gebhardt, Alina Bergholz, Kristen K Thomsen, Max Bossemeyer, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Julia Auinger, Bernd Saugel
{"title":"可穿戴式光容积脉搏波连续无创血压监测：非心脏手术后高危患者康复的方法比较研究。","authors":"Moritz Flick, Leon Gebhardt, Alina Bergholz, Kristen K Thomsen, Max Bossemeyer, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Julia Auinger, Bernd Saugel","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Biobeat wrist monitor (BB-613W; Biobeat Technologies, Petah-Tikva, Israel) and the Biobeat chest monitor (BB-613P; Biobeat Technologies) are wearable solutions for continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to investigate the blood pressure measurement performance of the Biobeat wrist monitor and chest monitor after external calibration.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A prospective method comparison study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Fifty high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery in an advanced postanaesthesia care unit.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>We compared blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor (BPWRIST-ART) and the Biobeat chest monitor (BPCHEST-ART) with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements (BPART). In addition, we aimed to compare blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor (BPWRIST-OSCI) with those from an oscillometric upper-arm cuff (BPOSCI). We used Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot and error grid analysis for statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean of the differences ± standard deviation (95%-limits of agreement) between BPWRIST-ART and BPART was 3 ± 11 mmHg (-19 to 25 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 51%. The mean of the differences between BPCHEST-ART and BPART was 3 ± 11 mmHg (-17 to 24 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 61%. The mean of the differences between BPWRIST-OSCI and BPOSCI was 6 ± 11 mmHg (-16 to 27 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 49%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with wearable photoplethysmography: A method comparison study in high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Moritz Flick, Leon Gebhardt, Alina Bergholz, Kristen K Thomsen, Max Bossemeyer, Alexander Hapfelmeier, Julia Auinger, Bernd Saugel\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Biobeat wrist monitor (BB-613W; Biobeat Technologies, Petah-Tikva, Israel) and the Biobeat chest monitor (BB-613P; Biobeat Technologies) are wearable solutions for continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to investigate the blood pressure measurement performance of the Biobeat wrist monitor and chest monitor after external calibration.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A prospective method comparison study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Fifty high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery in an advanced postanaesthesia care unit.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>We compared blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor (BPWRIST-ART) and the Biobeat chest monitor (BPCHEST-ART) with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements (BPART). In addition, we aimed to compare blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor (BPWRIST-OSCI) with those from an oscillometric upper-arm cuff (BPOSCI). We used Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot and error grid analysis for statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean of the differences ± standard deviation (95%-limits of agreement) between BPWRIST-ART and BPART was 3 ± 11 mmHg (-19 to 25 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 51%. The mean of the differences between BPCHEST-ART and BPART was 3 ± 11 mmHg (-17 to 24 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 61%. The mean of the differences between BPWRIST-OSCI and BPOSCI was 6 ± 11 mmHg (-16 to 27 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 49%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Anaesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002222\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002222","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with wearable photoplethysmography: A method comparison study in high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery.
Background: The Biobeat wrist monitor (BB-613W; Biobeat Technologies, Petah-Tikva, Israel) and the Biobeat chest monitor (BB-613P; Biobeat Technologies) are wearable solutions for continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring.
Objectives: We aimed to investigate the blood pressure measurement performance of the Biobeat wrist monitor and chest monitor after external calibration.
Design: A prospective method comparison study.
Setting: University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Patients: Fifty high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery in an advanced postanaesthesia care unit.
Main outcome measures: We compared blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor (BPWRIST-ART) and the Biobeat chest monitor (BPCHEST-ART) with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements (BPART). In addition, we aimed to compare blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor (BPWRIST-OSCI) with those from an oscillometric upper-arm cuff (BPOSCI). We used Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot and error grid analysis for statistical analysis.
Results: The mean of the differences ± standard deviation (95%-limits of agreement) between BPWRIST-ART and BPART was 3 ± 11 mmHg (-19 to 25 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 51%. The mean of the differences between BPCHEST-ART and BPART was 3 ± 11 mmHg (-17 to 24 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 61%. The mean of the differences between BPWRIST-OSCI and BPOSCI was 6 ± 11 mmHg (-16 to 27 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 49%.
Conclusions: 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.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
