Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Research article

Tolerability of the Oscar 2 ambulatory blood pressure monitor among research participants: a cross-sectional repeated measures study

Authors: Anthony J Viera, Kara Lingley, Alan L Hinderliter

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is increasingly used to measure blood pressure (BP) in research studies. We examined ease of use, comfort, degree of disturbance, reported adverse effects, factors associated with poor tolerability, and association of poor tolerability with data acquisition of 24-hour ABPM using the Oscar 2 monitor in the research setting.

Methods

Sixty adults participating in a research study of people with a history of borderline clinic BP reported on their experience with ABPM on two occasions one week apart. Poor tolerability was operationalized as an overall score at or above the 75th percentile using responses to questions adapted from a previously developed questionnaire. In addition to descriptive statistics (means for responses to Likert-scaled "0 to 10" questions and proportions for Yes/No questions), we examined reproducibility of poor tolerability as well as associations with poor tolerability and whether poor tolerability was associated with removal of the monitor or inadequate number of BP measurements.

Results

The mean ambulatory BP of participants by an initial ABPM session was 148/87 mm Hg. After wearing the monitor the first time, the degree to which the monitor was felt to be cumbersome ranged from a mean of 3.0 to 3.8, depending on whether at work, home, driving, or other times. The most bother was interference with normal sleeping pattern (mean 4.2). Wearers found the monitor straightforward to use (mean 7.5). Nearly 67% reported that the monitor woke them after falling asleep, and 8.6% removed it at some point during the night. Reported adverse effects included pain (32%), skin irritation (37%), and bruising (7%). Those categorized as having poor tolerability (kappa = 0.5 between sessions, p = 0.0003) were more likely to report being in fair/poor health (75% vs 22%, p = 0.01) and have elevated 24-hour BP average (systolic: 28% vs 17%, p = 0.56; diastolic: 30% vs 17%, p = 0.37). They were also more likely to remove the monitor and have inadequate numbers of measurements.

Conclusions

The Oscar 2 ABPM device is straightforward to use but can interfere with sleep. Commonly reported adverse effects include pain, skin irritation, and bruising. Those who tolerate the monitor poorly are more likely to report being in fair or poor health and to remove it, particularly at night.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Conen D, Bamberg F: Noninvasive 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2008, 26: 1290-1299. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282f97854.CrossRefPubMed Conen D, Bamberg F: Noninvasive 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2008, 26: 1290-1299. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282f97854.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Pickering TG, Shimbo D, Haas D: Ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 2368-2374. 10.1056/NEJMra060433.CrossRefPubMed Pickering TG, Shimbo D, Haas D: Ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring. N Engl J Med. 2006, 354: 2368-2374. 10.1056/NEJMra060433.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Pickering TG, Gerin W, Schwartz JE, Spruill TM, Davidson KW: Franz Volhard lecture: should doctors still measure blood pressure? The missing patients with masked hypertension. J Hypertens. 2008, 26: 2259-2267. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32831313c4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pickering TG, Gerin W, Schwartz JE, Spruill TM, Davidson KW: Franz Volhard lecture: should doctors still measure blood pressure? The missing patients with masked hypertension. J Hypertens. 2008, 26: 2259-2267. 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32831313c4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Pogue V, Rahman M, Lipkowitz M, Toto R, Miller E, Faulkner M, Rostand S, Hiremath L, Sika M, Kendrick C, Hu B, Greene T, Appel L, Phillips RA: Disparate estimates of hypertension control from ambulatory and clinic blood pressure measurements in hypertensive kidney disease. Hypertension. 2009, 53: 20-27.CrossRefPubMed Pogue V, Rahman M, Lipkowitz M, Toto R, Miller E, Faulkner M, Rostand S, Hiremath L, Sika M, Kendrick C, Hu B, Greene T, Appel L, Phillips RA: Disparate estimates of hypertension control from ambulatory and clinic blood pressure measurements in hypertensive kidney disease. Hypertension. 2009, 53: 20-27.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Chobanian AV: Does it matter how hypertension is controlled?. N Engl J Med. 23: 2485-2488. 359 Chobanian AV: Does it matter how hypertension is controlled?. N Engl J Med. 23: 2485-2488. 359
6.
go back to reference Jones SC, Bilous M, Winship S, Finn P, Goodwin J: Validation of the Oscar 2 oscillometric 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor according to the International Protocol for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices. Blood Press Monit. 2004, 9: 219-223. 10.1097/00126097-200408000-00007.CrossRefPubMed Jones SC, Bilous M, Winship S, Finn P, Goodwin J: Validation of the Oscar 2 oscillometric 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor according to the International Protocol for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices. Blood Press Monit. 2004, 9: 219-223. 10.1097/00126097-200408000-00007.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Goodwin J, Bilous M, Winship S, Finn P, Jones SC: Validation of the Oscar 2 oscillometric 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor according to British Hypertension Society protocol. Blood Press Monit. 2007, 12: 113-117. 10.1097/MBP.0b013e3280acab1b.CrossRefPubMed Goodwin J, Bilous M, Winship S, Finn P, Jones SC: Validation of the Oscar 2 oscillometric 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor according to British Hypertension Society protocol. Blood Press Monit. 2007, 12: 113-117. 10.1097/MBP.0b013e3280acab1b.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Walker SP, Permezel MJ, Brennecke SP, Higgins JR: Patient satisfaction with the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure monitor in pregnancy. Hypertens Preg. 2004, 23: 295-301. 10.1081/PRG-200030306.CrossRef Walker SP, Permezel MJ, Brennecke SP, Higgins JR: Patient satisfaction with the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure monitor in pregnancy. Hypertens Preg. 2004, 23: 295-301. 10.1081/PRG-200030306.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Van der Steen MS, Lenders JW, Thien T: Side effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Blood Press Monit. 2005, 10: 151-155. 10.1097/00126097-200506000-00007.CrossRefPubMed Van der Steen MS, Lenders JW, Thien T: Side effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Blood Press Monit. 2005, 10: 151-155. 10.1097/00126097-200506000-00007.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Mallion JM, de Gaudemaris R, Baguet JP, Azzouzi L, Quesada JL, Sauzeau C, Siché JP, Tremel F, Boutelant S: Acceptability and tolerance of ambulatory blood pressure measurement in the hypertensive patient. Blood Press Monit. 1996, 1: 197-203.PubMed Mallion JM, de Gaudemaris R, Baguet JP, Azzouzi L, Quesada JL, Sauzeau C, Siché JP, Tremel F, Boutelant S: Acceptability and tolerance of ambulatory blood pressure measurement in the hypertensive patient. Blood Press Monit. 1996, 1: 197-203.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Beltman FW, Heesen WF, Smit AJ, May JF, Lie KI, Meyboon-d Jong B: Acceptance and side effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: evaluation of a new technology. J Hum Hypertens. 1996, 10 (Suppl 3): S39-42.PubMed Beltman FW, Heesen WF, Smit AJ, May JF, Lie KI, Meyboon-d Jong B: Acceptance and side effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: evaluation of a new technology. J Hum Hypertens. 1996, 10 (Suppl 3): S39-42.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Elliot L, Iqbal P: Factors associated with probability of patient rejecting a repeat 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, despite recommendation by the physician. Blood Press Monit. 2003, 8: 191-194.CrossRefPubMed Elliot L, Iqbal P: Factors associated with probability of patient rejecting a repeat 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, despite recommendation by the physician. Blood Press Monit. 2003, 8: 191-194.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Ernst ME, Bergus GR: Favorable patient acceptance of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a primary care setting in the United States: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Fam Prac. 2003, 4: 15-10.1186/1471-2296-4-15.CrossRef Ernst ME, Bergus GR: Favorable patient acceptance of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a primary care setting in the United States: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Fam Prac. 2003, 4: 15-10.1186/1471-2296-4-15.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Van de Weijgert EJ, Braun JJ: Experience with noninvasive ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure recording in a community hospital. Neth J Med. 1992, 40: 175-182.PubMed Van de Weijgert EJ, Braun JJ: Experience with noninvasive ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure recording in a community hospital. Neth J Med. 1992, 40: 175-182.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Little P, Barnett J, Barnsley L, Marjoram J, Fitzgerald-Barron A, Mant D: Comparison of acceptability and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care. BMJ. 2002, 325: 258-259. 10.1136/bmj.325.7358.258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Little P, Barnett J, Barnsley L, Marjoram J, Fitzgerald-Barron A, Mant D: Comparison of acceptability and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care. BMJ. 2002, 325: 258-259. 10.1136/bmj.325.7358.258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Tolerability of the Oscar 2 ambulatory blood pressure monitor among research participants: a cross-sectional repeated measures study
Authors
Anthony J Viera
Kara Lingley
Alan L Hinderliter
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-59

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2011 Go to the issue