RNOtherThe Journal of cardiovascular nursing2018

Agreement Between Automated and Human Measurements of Heart Rate in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Ting-Tse Lin, Chia-Ling Wang, Min-Tsun Liao and 1 others

PMID 29461303

WHAT IT FOUND

In 47 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, both Omron and Microlife BP monitors matched human heart-rate counting overall, but Microlife overestimated heart rate when human counting was above 80 bpm.

Key findings

01Omron and Microlife heart-rate readings did not differ from human counting in the whole group.

02In patients whose human-counted heart rate was above 80 bpm, Microlife overestimated heart rate compared with human counting.

03The Microlife AF-detection algorithm did not flag atrial fibrillation in 5 of 47 patients with confirmed AF.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 47 patients from one center were studied, and all were stable ambulatory outpatients. Only Omron M5-I and Microlife BPA100 Plus were tested, so results may not apply to other automated BP monitors. One investigator performed human counting and operated the devices and was not blinded to the results. Human counting and device measurements were not simultaneous; they were separated by 5-minute intervals, and the study assumed little change in resting heart rate. Patients with heart rate above 120 bpm were not included. Only patients whose arm circumference fit a standard adult BP cuff were included. Microlife missed AF in 5 of 47 patients, and its AF-detection sensitivity was lower than previous validation studies.

Declared interests

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that every automated BP monitor gives accurate heart rate in atrial fibrillation. Only Omron M5-I and Microlife BPA100 Plus were tested, and Microlife overestimated heart rate when human counting was above 80 bpm. The Microlife AF-detection algorithm also missed 5 of 47 confirmed AF cases.

Read it on PubMed →