Comparison of three pressure monitors used to measure interface pressure under compression bandages. (May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ning, Junjie; Fish, John; Trinh, Felix; Abbas, Jihad; Seiwert, Andrew; Lurie, Fedor
• Is Part Of: Phlebology. Volume 35:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 262
• Page End: 267
• Publication Date: 2020-05
• Subjects: Compression therapy -- wounds -- edema -- venous disease -- interface pressure; Veins -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.14
• DOI: 10.1177/0268355519862178
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0268-3555

Abstract

Background: Measuring the interface pressure produced by compression therapy devices is essential for research and clinical practice. New user-friendly measuring devices, such as Smart Sleeve Pressure Monitor (SSPM) and Juzo Pressure Monitor (JPM) allow longitudinal pressure measurement. However, their accuracy and agreement with well-established usage of the PicoPress (PP) are unknown. The aim of this study is to investigate measurement accuracy of PP, SSPM, and JPM. Methods: The three devices were tested in 10 healthy volunteers by applying incrementally increasing pressure from 20 mm Hg to 50 mm Hg using a calibrated sphygmomanometer cuff. The linearity of the response and measurement accuracy were compared among the three devices. In a separate experiment, the three devices were compared by simultaneously recording the interface pressure under bandages immediately after bandaging and after 4 h of wearing the bandage. Results: PP had the best performance with the reference of sphygmomanometer, while JPM had better linearity and accuracy than SSPM. The mean difference in the interface pressure under bandages was +13.36 mm Hg between SSPM and PP, and +0.50 mm Hg between JPM and PP. The 95% limits of agreement were −13.92 and +40.64 mm Hg, and −19.83 and +20.84 mm Hg, respectively. Conclusions: JPM showed better agreement with both sphygmomanometer and PP compared to SSPM. JPM is a reasonable alternative for monitoring interface pressure continuously.