OR in the News

Flick, M., Gebhardt, L., Bergholz, A., et al. | Eur J Anaesthesiol (2025) 43:74-82 | Continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring with wearable photoplethysmography: A method comparison study in high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery

November 29, 2025

BACKGROUND – The Biobeat wrist monitor (BB-613W; Bio-beat Technologies,) and the Biobeat chest monitor (BB-613P; Biobeat Technologies) are wearable solutions for continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring.

OBJECTIVE(S) –  We aimed to investigate the blood pressure measurement performance of the Biobeat wrist monitor and chest monitor after external calibration.

DESIGN –  A prospective method comparison study.

SETTING –  University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

PATIENTS –  Fifty high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery in an advanced postanaesthesia care unit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES –  We compared blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor (BPwrist-ART) and the Biobeat chest monitor (BPCHEST-ART) with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements (BPART). In addition, we aimed to compare blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor (BPwrist-osci) with those from an oscillometric upper-arm cuff (BPosci). We used Bland-Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot and error grid analysis for statistical analysis.

RESULTS –  The mean of the differences ± standard deviation (95%-limits of agreement) between BPwrist-ART and BPART was 3 ± 11 mmHg (-19 to 25 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 51%. The mean of the differences between BPchest-ART and BPART was 3 ± 11 mmHg (-17 to 24 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 61%. The mean of the differences between BPwrist-osci and BPosci was 6 ± 11 mmHg (-16 to 27 mmHg) for mean blood pressure with a concordance rate to track 15-min blood pressure changes of 49%.

CONCLUSIONS –  Blood pressure measurements from the Biobeat wrist monitor and the Biobeat chest monitor did not show clinically acceptable agreement either with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements or with blood pressure measurements from an oscillometric upper-arm cuff in high-risk patients recovering from noncardiac surgery in an advanced postanaesthesia care unit.