Article

Can a simulator that regenerates physiological waveforms evaluate oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure devices?

Department of Medical Physics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK, and Department of Biomedical Engineering, ESIL, Université de la Méditerranée, Aix-Marseille II, France.
Blood Pressure Monitoring (Impact Factor: 1.18). 05/2006; 11(2):63-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.mbp.0000200482.72410.e2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A simulator has been developed that enables previously recorded clinical oscillometric waveforms to be regenerated for testing oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure measurement devices. Two non-invasive blood pressure devices were evaluated using the simulator with its database of 243 waveforms, to assess the value of a simulator for such evaluations.
Two oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure devices, both of which had previously been validated against auscultatory references, were selected. The Omron HEM-907 (Omron, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) measures the pressure during linear cuff deflation and the GE ProCare 400 (GE Healthcare, Tampa, Florida, USA) measures during step deflation. Each non-invasive blood pressure device was attached to the simulator and pressures were recorded from all 243 waveforms. The differences between the systolic and diastolic pressures measured by each non-invasive blood pressure device and the auscultatory references for each waveform were calculated. These were assessed with the European and American validation standards and with the British Hypertension Society protocol.
The paired pressure differences (non-invasive blood pressure device minus auscultatory reference) for each device complied partly, but not fully, with the standards or protocol. The means (+/-standard deviation) of the paired systolic and diastolic pressures differences for the Omron were -2.4 mmHg (+/-5.9 mmHg) and -8.9 mmHg (+/-6.5 mmHg), and for the ProCare were -6.5 mmHg (+/-10.4 mmHg) and -2.9 mmHg (+/-7.0 mmHg), respectively. The pressures recorded by the Omron device met the standards for systolic pressures but failed for diastolic pressures and conversely for the ProCare.
This represents the first evaluation of non-invasive blood pressure devices with a simulator that generates previously recorded clinical oscillometric waveforms. It allowed data from over 100 study participants to be used. Both devices had been previously clinically validated, but their evaluation using the simulator with its regenerated waveforms only partly met the required criteria. Although the results did not fully match previous clinical validations, these initial results give encouragement that a simulator with sufficient stored waveforms might be able to replace the difficult and expensive clinical evaluation of non-invasive blood pressure devices that has prevented many devices from being fully evaluated.

0 Followers
 · 
103 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Peripheral pulses have been recorded and analysed to determine the accuracy with which pulse transit times (PTTs) can be measured. Measurements of PTT between the ECG Q-wave and various peripheral sites were made in 10 normal subjects on 10 separate days. Mean values were determined for the ears (174 ms), fingers (245 ms), and toes (361 ms). The technique was sufficiently accurate to detect small changes in PTT due to changes in posture; sitting to lying, 5.2 ms. When comparing simultaneous measurements on bilateral sites only small differences in PTT were discovered, and these were not significant in the study group as a whole. However, these differences were significant in some individuals. When the subjects raised a single arm or leg, significant differences (38 ms and 49 ms respectively) were recorded between sides. The day-to-day repeatability sigma (expressed as the square root of the within-subject mean square variance) of individual PTT measurements on a subject (supine) was for ears, fingers and toes respectively 9.4, 9.2 and 12 ms. For right-left differences the repeatability was 7.2, 5.9 and 14 ms. Hence changes in PTTs, or differences between right and left sides, can be detected from single measurements with 95% confidence if they exceed approximately 20 ms in ears or fingers and 30 ms in toes.
    Clinical Physics and Physiological Measurement 12/1988; 9(4):319-30. DOI:10.1088/0143-0815/9/4/003
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) simulators are electro-mechanical devices used for testing and evaluating oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure monitors. Simulators are used mainly in clinical environment to assist with routine and after-repair testing of NIBP monitors. In this paper we suggest basic procedures for evaluating a NIBP simulator; assessing its suitability and quality. Proposed evaluation procedure consists of a static calibration and a dynamic evaluation. In static calibration the simulator is calibrated as a common indicating barometer. In dynamic evaluation the output waveforms are investigated (repeatability of the output according to different static pressures and heart rates, repeatability of the output at a constant blood pressure magnitude). Proposed evaluation procedure represents a minimal set of tests to ensure the simulator can be used for testing NIBP monitors. A commercial simulator SmartArm (by Clinical Dynamics, USA) was evaluated according to it and the results are presented.
    12/2006: pages 342-345;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oscillometric noninvasive blood pressure devices measure blood pressure using an indirect method and proprietary algorithms and hence require validation in clinical trials. Clinical trials are, however, expensive and give contradictory results, and validated devices are not accurate in all patient groups. Simulators that regenerate oscillometric waveforms promise an alternative to clinical trials provided they include sufficient physiological and pathological oscillometric waveforms. Simulators should also improve the understanding of the oscillometric method.
    Blood Pressure Monitoring 09/2007; 12(4):251-3. DOI:10.1097/MBP.0b013e3280b10bd8 · 1.18 Impact Factor
Show more