Objective: Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring has emerged as an important tool supporting physicians in the diagnosis and management of arterial hypertension. Compared with office measurements and self-measurements, however, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring shows the lowest patients' acceptance. The present study compares the convenience of different monitors in order to examine whether the patients benefit from new technologies.
Methods: In a prospective randomized study, we compared the side effects of the Spacelabs 90207 with the I.E.M. Mobilograph monitor in 250 patients by means of a questionnaire that covered the following aspects: restriction in everyday activities, noise, sleep disturbance, pain and mobility. Complaints were measured by a five-point scale ranging from 'no complaints at all' to 'severe complaints'.
Results: In all, 205 patients returned completed surveys (101 patients of the I.E.M. group, 104 patients of the Spacelabs group), yielding an 82% final response rate. The overall mean complaint score was significantly higher in the Spacelabs group than in the I.E.M group (2.24 vs. 1.78; P<0.001). The Mobilograph revealed less discomfort in every single question and differences were significant for restrictions in everyday activities, noise, pain, disturbance of the patient's or the patient's partner's sleep and restrictions in walking. Sleep disturbance was the aspect with the highest difference in the two groups.
Conclusion: The present work confirms that ambulatory blood pressure monitoring monitors are cumbersome to wear. Devices, however, differ in their comfort. Monitors with an improved convenience might lead to a higher patients' acceptance of this powerful diagnostic tool.