Blood pressure measurement device selection in low-resource settings: Challenges, compromises, and routes to progress

Are previously validated blood pressure self-measurement devices accepted under the Universal Standard? A systematic review

This study aimed to analyze whether oscillometric blood pressure devices validated for the general population may be considered approved under Universal Standard criteria. A systematic review was conducted, with searches in nine databases, up to September 2023, including 32 validation studies of noninvasive arm cuff devices for self-measurement. The British Hypertension Society protocol was most common (68%), followed by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (40%). Most devices met Universal Standard criterion 1, but only 17 (53%) met criterion 2. Few studies contained details about the choice of cuffs, the number of participants by arm circumference, or the differences between methods by cuff subgroup. Due to the considerable differences between validation protocols, 53% of the devices analyzed were approved under the Universal Standard. The study contributes to expanding the validated pool of self-measurement devices under the Universal Standard.

Improving the accuracy of blood pressure measuring devices in Australia: a modelled return on investment study

The VALID BP project was initiated to increase the availability of validated blood pressure measuring devices (BPMDs). The goal is to eliminate non validated BPMDs and minimise over- and underdiagnosis of hypertension caused by inaccurate readings. This study was undertaken to assess the potential return on investment in the VALID BP project. The Framework to Assess the Impact of Translational Health Research was applied to the VALID BP project. This paper focuses on the implementation of the cost benefit analysis aspect of this framework to monetise past research investment and model future research costs, implementation costs, and benefits. Analysis was based on reasoned assumptions about potential impacts from availability and use of validated BPMDs (assuming an end goal of 100% validated BPMDs available in Australia by 2028) and improved skills leading to more accurate BP measurement. After 5 years, with 20% attribution of benefits, there is a potential $1.14-$1.30 return for every dollar spent if the proportion of validated BPMDs and staff trained in proper BP measurement technique increased from 20% to 60%. After eight years (2020-2028) and assuming universal validation and training coverage, the returns would be between $2.70 and $3.20 per dollar spent (not including cost of side effects of unnecessary medication or downstream patient impacts from unmanaged hypertension). This modelled economic analysis indicates there will be positive downstream economic benefits if the availability of validated BPMDs is increased. The findings support ongoing efforts toward a universal regulatory framework for BPMDs and can be considered within more detailed future economic analyses.

Quality in screening and measuring blood pressure in China's primary health care: a national cross-sectional study using unannounced standardized patients

Background

This study aims to evaluate primary care providers' adherence to the standard of measuring blood pressure for people aged 35 or above during their initial visit, as per Chinese guidelines, and to identify factors affecting their practices.

Methods

We developed 11 standardized patients (SP) cases as tracer conditions to evaluate primary care, and deployed trained SPs for unannounced visits to randomly selected providers in seven provinces of China. The SPs used a checklist based on guidelines to record whether and how blood pressure was measured. Data were analyzed descriptively and regression analysis was performed to examine the association between outcomes and factors such as provider, patient, facility, and clinical case characteristics.

Findings

The SPs conducted 1201 visits and found that less than one-third of USPs ≥35 had their blood pressure measured. Only 26.9% of migraine and 15.4% of diabetes cases received blood pressure measurements. Additionally, these measurements did not follow the proper guidelines and recommended steps. On average, 55.6% of the steps were followed with few providers considering influencing factors before measurement and only 6.0% of patients received both-arm measurements. The use of wrist sphygmomanometers was associated with poor blood pressure measurement.

Interpretation

In China, primary care hypertension screening practices fall short of guidelines, with infrequent initiation of blood pressure measurements and inadequate adherence to proper measurement steps. To address this, priority should be placed on adopting, implementing, and upholding guidelines for hypertension screening and measurement.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Doctoral Fund Project of Inner Mongolia Medical University, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation.

Implementation of Global Hearts Hypertension Control Programs in 32 Low- and Middle-Income Countries: JACC International

In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Resolve to Save Lives partnered with country governments and other stakeholders to design, test, and scale up the WHO HEARTS hypertension services package in 32 low- and middle-income countries. Facility-based HEARTS performance indicators included number of patients enrolled, number treated and with blood pressure controlled, number who missed a scheduled follow-up visit, and number lost to follow-up. By 2022, HEARTS hypertension control programs treated 12.2 million patients in 165,000 primary care facilities. Hypertension control was 38% (median 48%; range 5%-86%). In 4 HEARTS countries using the same digital health information system, facility-based control improved from 18% at baseline to 46% in 48 months. At the population level, median estimated population-based hypertension control was 11.0% of all hypertension patients (range 2.0%-34.7%). The Global Hearts experience of implementing WHO HEARTS demonstrates the feasibility of controlling hypertension in low- and middle-income country primary care settings.

Validation of Blood Pressure Devices as per 2020 World Health Organization Technical Specifications: A Scoping Review of Global Literature

BACKGROUND

To identify and summarize the global research literature on validation of automated noninvasive blood pressure measurement devices (BPMDs) with upper arm cuff, develop a repository of validated BPMDs in compliance with the 2020 World Health Organization technical specifications, and identify challenges and gaps in evidence base on validated BPMDs.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. Primary research validating BPMDs complying with the 2020 World Health Organization technical specifications (ie, semiautomated/automated noninvasive devices with upper arm cuff), published in English between January 2000 and December 2021, was included. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, ProQuest and the dabl website.

RESULTS

We included 269 studies validating 251 BPMDs across 89 manufacturers. Omron (29%), Microlife (10%), and A&D Company (8%) were the top 3 manufacturers. The 3 most frequently used validation protocols were the European Society of Hypertension-international protocol 2002 (27%), European Society of Hypertension-international protocol 2010 (25%), and modified British Hypertension Society protocol 1993 (16%), respectively. Nearly 45% of the validated BPMDs were intended for use in clinical settings, 38% were for home or self-measurement use, and 48% were for general adults. Most studies reported that BPMDs passed the validation criteria. There was inadequate reporting across studies, especially pertaining to validation settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Most BPMDs fulfilled the validation criteria. However, there are considerable gaps in BPMD research in terms of geographical representation, including specific target populations and diseases/conditions, and a range of arm circumferences. Additionally, a potential strategy is required to accelerate the adoption of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization Universal Standard (International Organization for Standardization 81060-2:2018) for BPMD validation.

How to find and use validated blood pressure measuring devices

Clinically validated, automated arm-cuff blood pressure measuring devices (BPMDs) are recommended for BP measurement. However, most BPMDs available for purchase by consumers globally are not properly validated. This is a problem because non-validated BPMDs are less accurate and precise than validated ones, and therefore if used clinically could lead to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of BP. In response to this problem, several validated device lists have been developed, which can be used by clinicians and consumers to identify devices that have passed clinical validation testing. The purpose of this review is to describe the resources that are available for finding validated BPMDs in different world regions, to identify the differences between validated device lists, and describe current gaps and challenges. How to use validated BPMDs properly is also summarised.

Sources of automatic office blood pressure measurement error: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Accurate and reliable blood pressure (BP) measurement is important for the prevention and treatment of hypertension. The oscillometric-based automatic office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is widely used in hospitals and clinics, but measurement errors are common in BP measurements. There is a lack of systematic review of the sources of measurement errors.

APPROACH

A systematic review of all existing research on sources of AOBPM errors. A search strategy was designed in six online databases, and all the literature published before October 2021 was selected. Those studies that used the AOBPM device to measure BP from the upper arm of subjects were included.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1365 studies were screened, and 224 studies were included in this final review. They investigated 22 common error sources with clinical AOBPM. Regarding the causes of BP errors, this review divided them into the following categories: the activities before measurement, patient's factors, measurement environment, measurement procedure, and device settings. 13 sources caused increased systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP), 2 sources caused the decrease in SBP and DBP, only 1 source had no significant effect on BPs, and the other errors had a non-uniform effect (either increase or decrease in BPs). The error ranges for SBP and DBP were -14 to 33 mmHg and -6 to 19 mmHg, respectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

The measurement accuracy of AOBPM is susceptible to the influence of measurement factors. Interpreting BP readings need to be treated with caution in clinical measurements. This review made comprehensive evidence for the need for standardized BP measurements and provided guidance for clinical practitioners when measuring BP with AOBPM devices.

A simple six-step guide to National-Scale Hypertension Control Program implementation

Hypertension is the leading single preventable risk factor for death worldwide, and most of the disease burden attributed to hypertension weighs on low-and middle-income countries. Effective large-scale public health hypertension control programs are needed to control hypertension globally. National programs can follow six important steps to launch a successful national-scale hypertension control program: establish an administrative structure and survey current resources, select a standard hypertension treatment protocol, ensure supply of medication and blood pressure devices, train health care workers to measure blood pressure and control hypertension, implement an information system for monitoring patients and the program overall, and enroll and monitor patients with phased program expansion. Resolve to Save Lives, an initiative of global public health organization Vital Strategies, and its partners organized these six key steps and materials into a structured, stepwise guide to establish best practices in hypertension program design, launch, maintenance, and scale-up.

Weak and fragmented regulatory frameworks on the accuracy of blood pressure-measuring devices pose a major impediment for the implementation of HEARTS in the Americas

Global HEARTS is a WHO initiative for cardiovascular disease prevention and control. Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is an essential component of the initiative. This study aimed to determine the regulatory frameworks governing the accuracy of BPMDs in countries of the Americas participating in the HEARTS initiative. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the laws and regulations relevant to ensuring the accuracy of BPMDs were determined from the Ministries of Health/Regulatory Agencies among 13 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Analysis included characterizing the scope of regulations (ie, pre-market approval, sales and promotion, labeling, cuff sizes, and procurement), information systems for monitoring the models of BPMDs used in primary health care (PHC), and systems to enforce compliance with regulations. Ten of the 13 countries had medical device laws, but regulations that specifically address BPMDs only existed in three countries. Only one country (Brazil) had regulations for mandatory accuracy validation testing and only two countries regulated internet sales of BPMDs. Labeling and cuff size regulations existed in four and two countries, respectively. Less than half the countries reported having a data repository on the BPMD models being used in PHC facilities (four countries) or sold (five countries). Weak and fragmented regulatory frameworks on the accuracy of BPMDs exist among countries of the Americas. This will adversely affect the accuracy of blood pressure assessment and hence poses a major impediment for successful implementation of HEARTS initiative.