Hypertension is the biggest single contributor to the global burden of disease and mortality. In the US, one in three adults has hypertension 1 making it the most commonly diagnosed condition in adults by primary care practitioners. 2 The impact of hypertension on the global burden of disease occurs as a result of hypertension being a principal risk factor for the development of serious comorbidities including stroke, congestive heart failure, other cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease. 3-6 We conducted a research study that found that the use of smart BP monitors is associated with a significant decrease in blood pressure.
The efficacy of traditional hypertension management using episodic in-person interactions between healthcare teams and patients has been questioned over the past five decades.7 Hypertension is a data-intensive condition requiring continuous management. Recently, attention has been drawn towards the benefits of home blood pressure measuring (HBPM) for improved hypertension management.
HBPM can confirm hypertension diagnoses and enable physicians to assess patients’ BP levels between office visits. It can also lead to an improved treatment program as it gives doctors more data points. Importantly, HBPM is associated with greater declines in blood pressure in hypertensive patients and improved patient BP control. McManus et al. (2005) demonstrated that, in comparison with an in-clinic monitored hypertensive group, hypertensive patients with remote monitoring devices lowered their systolic BP (SBP) by an additional 4.3 mmHg over 6 months.8
The introduction of portable, smartphone-connected BP technology has created a new generation of BP devices for patients and physicians: smart BP monitors. The primary difference in a smart BP monitor and traditional HBPM devices stems from the method by which data is entered, displayed and stored and the opportunity for patient interaction and engagement. Traditional HBPM devices display readings on the device’s screen. Most traditional HBPM devices require patients to record their BP data manually whereas some can also store data in the device itself. Consequently, data must be actively retrieved and manually analyzed by the user, healthcare provider or software to guide treatment decisions. In comparison, QardioArm, a smartphone-connected device, automatically transfers user data to a mobile app following a reading. Individuals can review all present and past results in the app and opt to share results with physicians automatically to enable continuous patient monitoring.
In November 2018 Qardio concluded a study to compare differences in blood pressure data trends between users with traditional HBPM devices and those using QardioArm smart BP cuffs. The study evaluated a random sample of 1725 people using QardioArm with their initial systolic blood pressure (SBP) above 120mmHg. Over a study period of six months, SBP was shown to reduce significantly in every hypertensive stratified group. The reduction in SBP using QardioArm was 4.1 times the results reported in reference third-party studies using traditional BP devices.
With Qardio, patients can monitor their blood pressure frequently from home using QardioArm, a wireless blood pressure monitor, while care providers can instantly receive these results using Qardio’s remote patient monitoring system QardioMD. To learn more how RPM with Qardio works, speak with a product expert here.
1 R. Merai, ‘CDC Grand Rounds: A Public Health Approach to Detect and Control Hypertension’, MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep., vol. 65, 2016.
2 B. M. Egan, Y. Zhao, and R. N. Axon, ‘US Trends in Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension, 1988-2008’, JAMA, vol. 303, no. 20, pp. 2043–2050, May 2010.
3 J. Lv et al., ‘Effects of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’, PLoS Med., vol. 9, no. 8, Aug. 2012.
4 J. Lv et al., ‘Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on the progression of chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, CMAJ Can. Med. Assoc. J. J. Assoc. Medicale Can., vol. 185, no. 11, pp. 949–957, Aug. 2013.]
5 United States Renal Data System, ‘Annual Data Report | Volume 2 – ESRD’, United States Renal Data System (USRDS), 2014.
6 C. Thomopoulos, G. Parati, and A. Zanchetti, ‘Effects of blood pressure lowering on outcome incidence in hypertension: 2. Effects at different baseline and achieved blood pressure levels–overview and meta-analyses of randomized trials’, J. Hypertens., vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 2296–2304, Dec. 2014.
7 F. Nobre and D. Mion Junior, ‘Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring: Five Decades of More Light and Less Shadows’, Arq. Bras. Cardiol., vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 528–537, Jun. 2016.
8 R. J. McManus et al., ‘Targets and self monitoring in hypertension: randomised controlled trial and cost effectiveness analysis’, BMJ, vol. 331, no. 7515, p. 493, Sep. 2005.
