4.0 Article

Validation of two automatic devices: Omron HEM-7252G-HP and Omron HEM-7251G for self-measurement of blood pressure according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010

Journal

BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 286-290

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000127

Keywords

blood pressure measurement; device; European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010; guideline

Funding

  1. Kansai Medical University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the performance of Omron HEM-7252G-HP and Omron HEM-7251G for monitoring upper arm blood pressure (BP) in accordance with the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 (ESH-IP revision 2010).MethodsThree trained medical doctors validated the performance of these devices by comparing data obtained from these devices with those obtained using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. We included 33 participants (19 men and 14 women for the experiment using HEM-7252G-HP; 16 men and 17 women for the experiment using HEM-7251G). The mean age of the participants was 5012 and 5310 years in the respective studies.ResultsThe percentages of test device-observer mercury sphygmomanometer BP differences within 5, 10, and 15mmHg were 76, 92, and 97% for systolic BP (SBP) and 83, 97, and 99% for diastolic BP (DBP), respectively, in the Omron HEM-7252G-HP and 77, 92, and 99% for SBP and 85, 94, and 98% for DBP, respectively, in the Omron HEM-7251G in the part 1 analysis; both SBP and DBP passed the part 1 and part 2 criteria.The mean differences between the device and mercury readings for SBP and DBP were as follows: HEM-7252G-HP, -1.5 +/- 5.1 and -1.2 +/- 3.9mmHg, respectively; HEM-7351G, -0.6 +/- 4.7 and -0.2 +/- 4.4mmHg, respectively.ConclusionThe Omron HEM-7252G-HP and HEM-7251G passed all the requirements of the ESH-IP 2010 revision.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available