» Articles » PMID: 21524301

Tolerability of the Oscar 2 Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor Among Research Participants: a Cross-sectional Repeated Measures Study

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2011 Apr 29
PMID 21524301
Citations 28
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Blunted Blood Pressure Dipping During Night Shift Work: Does It Matter? Can We Intervene?.

Patterson P, Hostler D, Muldoon M, Buysse D, Reis S Am J Ind Med. 2025; 68(4):313-320.

PMID: 39953922 PMC: 11898159. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.23711.


A method for blood pressure hydrostatic pressure correction using wearable inertial sensors and deep learning.

Colburn D, Chern T, Guo V, Salamat K, Pugliese D, Bradley C NPJ Biosens. 2025; 2(1):5.

PMID: 39897702 PMC: 11785522. DOI: 10.1038/s44328-024-00021-y.


Resonance sonomanometry for noninvasive, continuous monitoring of blood pressure.

Jimenez R, Yurk D, Dell S, Rutledge A, Fu M, Dempsey W PNAS Nexus. 2024; 3(7):pgae252.

PMID: 39081785 PMC: 11287871. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae252.


When and how to use ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and home blood pressure monitoring for managing hypertension.

Lee E Clin Hypertens. 2024; 30(1):10.

PMID: 38556887 PMC: 10983625. DOI: 10.1186/s40885-024-00265-w.


First-in-Human Study for Evaluating the Accuracy of Smart Ring Based Cuffless Blood Pressure Measurement.

Kim J, Chang S, Park S J Korean Med Sci. 2024; 39(2):e18.

PMID: 38225785 PMC: 10789523. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e18.


References
1.
Ernst M, Bergus G . Favorable patient acceptance of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a primary care setting in the United States: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Fam Pract. 2003; 4:15. PMC: 270030. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-4-15. View

2.
Walker S, Permezel M, Brennecke S, Tuttle L, Higgins J . Patient satisfaction with the SpaceLabs 90207 ambulatory blood pressure monitor in pregnancy. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2004; 23(3):295-301. DOI: 10.1081/PRG-200030306. View

3.
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(5):191-4. DOI: 10.1097/00126097-200310000-00003. View

4.
Little P, Barnett J, Barnsley L, Marjoram J, Fitzgerald-Barron A, Mant D . Comparison of acceptability of and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care. BMJ. 2002; 325(7358):258-9. PMC: 117641. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7358.258. View

5.
Pickering T, Gerin W, Schwartz J, Spruill T, Davidson K . Franz Volhard lecture: should doctors still measure blood pressure? The missing patients with masked hypertension. J Hypertens. 2008; 26(12):2259-67. PMC: 4580272. DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32831313c4. View