Measuring blood pressure at the wrist: more comfortable for patients and more convenient for doctors?

Objectives. To compare the agreement between conventional measurement of bl ood pressure and measurements obtained using two automated devices; and to compare how comfortable each of the three methods of measurement were for p atients. Methods: Blood pressure measurements and patient comfort scores were record ed using three different devices in 125-surgery and 40-community patients. The devices used were a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer, an automated device that measured blood pressure on the upper arm and an automated devi ce that measured blood pressure at the wrist. In each patient, the differen ce between the conventional and automatic measurement was calculated. The l imits of agreement of each device were then calculated as the mean differen ce +/- 1.96 standard deviations. Results: In surgery patients, the width of limits of agreement of wrist mea surement were 20.0 mm Hg and 12.1 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic blood pr essure respectively, compared with 26.4 mm Hg and 27.7 mm Hg for automatic arm measurement. In community patients, the width of limits of agreement of wrist measurement were 11.6 mm Hg and 11.0 mm Hg for systolic and diastoli c blood pressure respectively, compared with 19.5 mm Hg and 12.1 mm Hg for automatic arm measurement. Surgery patients also reported that wrist measur ement of blood pressure was significantly more comfortable than either manu al or automatic arm measurement (mean comfort scores 4.03 for automatic wri st and 2.13 for automatic arm measurement, Friedman's Test, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Blood pressure measurements taken using the wrist device agree d more closely with those obtained using a conventional aneroid sphygmomano meter than the arm device. The wrist device was also more comfortable for p atients than two other methods of blood pressure measurement.