Measurement reliability of automated oscillometric blood pressure monitor in the elderly with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Blood pressure monitoring Vol. 25; no. 1; p. 2
• Main Authors: Park, Seong-Hi, Choi, Yun-Kyoung
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01.02.2020
• Subjects: Aged; Arterial Pressure; Atrial Fibrillation - physiopathology; Blood Pressure Determination - instrumentation; Blood Pressure Monitors - standards; Female; Humans; Male; Oscillometry - instrumentation; Reproducibility of Results
• ISSN: 1473-5725
• DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000414

This study aimed to identify whether automated oscillometric blood pressure monitor (AOBPM) is a reliable blood pressure (BP) measurement tool in geriatric patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with high variability in BP and to evaluate whether it can be applied in practice. Electronic searches were performed in databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL by using the following keywords: 'atrial fibrillation,' 'atrial flutter, 'blood pressure monitor', 'sphygmomanometer.' The QUADAS-2 was applied to assess the internal validity of selected studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 program. Systematic review. We identified 10 studies, including 938 geriatric patients with AF. We compared with the previously used BP measurement method (mainly office) and AOBPM, and the patients with AF were divided into the AF-AF (atrial fibrillation rhythm continued) and AF-SR groups (sinus rhythm recovered). The difference in the systolic BP was -3.0 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): -6.58 to 0.59] and -1.62 (95% CI: -6.08 to 2.84) mmHg in the AF-AF and AF-SR groups, respectively. The difference in the diastolic BP was 0.17 (95% CI: -2.90 to 3.25) mmHg and -0.23 (95% CI: -5.11 to 4.65) mmHg, respectively. This review showed that the BP difference from AOBPM compared with the auscultatory BP method was less than 5 mmHg in the elderly with AF. This difference is acceptable in clinical practice. However, AOBPM compared with invasive arterial BP in the diastolic BP was a difference of 5 mmHg or more, and so its accuracy cannot be assured.