Systolic Pressure and Pulse Rate Range Performance Comparison of Seven Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Monitors

John Beard,1 Karim Pichard,1 Jonah E Attebery,1 Halit O Yapici,2 René Coffeng1 1GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA; 2Boston Strategic Partners, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: John Beard, GE Healthcare 500 W. Monroe Street, Chicago, IL, 60661, USA, Email [email protected]: To evaluate blood pressure (BP) and pulse rate (PR) measurement range and determination time of selected non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitors.Patients and Methods: Seven oscillometric NIBP monitors underwent laboratory-based simulations of high and low BP and PR values to determine the outer bounds that each monitor could measure. Reliability was determined by devices’ ability to detect simulation signals of chosen BP/PR values. Determination times were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey honestly significant difference.Results: All monitors reliably reported 50– 180 mmHg and 80– 140 bpm simulations, except Connex which provided the narrowest ranges (only reliable at 140 and 230 bpm; 50– 180 mmHg). B125 and Efficia CM120 had the widest ranges for PR (30– 240 bpm and 30– 220 bpm, respectively) and systolic BP (30– 250 mmHg for both). Connex presented the quickest mean determination time (19.23s), followed by B125 (24.14s).Conclusion: NIBP monitor performances varied considerably outside mid-range BP/PR and there were significant differences across determination times. NIBP devices that strike a balance between range and speed may provide the greatest clinical utility.Keywords: reliability, blood pressure, heart rate