[PP.01.08] EUROPEAN SOCIETY OF HYPERTENSION INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL 2010 FOR THE VALIDATION OF BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORS: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF ITS APPLICATION

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Objective:

The reliability of blood pressure (BP) monitors is a prerequisite for the accurate evaluation of hypertension. Validation protocols have been developed to evaluate the accuracy of BP monitors, and the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP) is the most widely used worldwide. A review of published validation studies using the revised ESH-IP 2010 (ESH-IP2) was performed, to identify possible violations, divergences and adaptations.

Design and method:

Published validation studies that used the ESH-IP2 from its publication (2010) until the end of 2015 were identified. All aspects of the protocol procedure were scrutinized using a standard checklist.

Results:

147 validation studies were identified: 92 (63%) used the ESH-IP, 22 (15%) the British Hypertension Society Protocol, 26 (18%) the US AAMI and/or ISO protocol, and 18 (12%) did not follow an established protocol (some studies used two protocols). Of the 92 ESH-IP studies 54 (59%) used the ESH-IP2. The number of ESH-IP2 studies published per year were 7/3/9/16/19 for years 2011/12/13/14/15 respectively. 52 studies reported a ‘pass’ result (96.3%). 93% of the studies tested oscillometric devices, 78% upper-arm devices, 20% clinic, 6% ambulatory and 89% home monitors (some for more than one function). Four studies (7%) included special populations (children, renal disease patients, intensive care unit patients). The ESH-IP2 was adapted for specific device type or population in 5 studies. Protocol violations were identified in 17 studies (some two or more violations), involving sample size, recruitment criteria, simultaneous measurements, or combined use of ESH-IP1 and ESH-IP2 criteria. Most frequent violations were diastolic BP distribution range (19% of studies), BP recruitment range (15%), participants’ age (6%). One study with ESH-IP2 criteria indicating ‘fail’ concluded ‘pass’. Detailed information on cuffs use, and on recruitment and distribution BP ranges was omitted in 29 studies (54%).

Conclusions:

Five years after its publication, the revised ESH-IP2 remains the preferred protocol for device validation. Protocol violations occur in one third of the studies, suggesting that a more strict standardization of the validation procedure and reporting is necessary. The peer review process of scientific journals often misses important deficiencies of validation studies.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles