Obtaining CE Mark for BP Device Approval in Europe: A Clinical and Regulatory Roadmap

The European market represents a major opportunity for developers of blood pressure (BP) monitoring technology, but with great opportunity comes great scrutiny. Navigating the path to CE marking under the EU’s rigorous Medical Device Regulation (MDR 2017/745) requires a level of preparation and precision. Success now hinges on providing a higher caliber of clinical evidence, more robust post-market surveillance plans, and more comprehensive technical documentation than ever before. 

At Parameters Research Lab (PRL), we specialize in conducting regulatory-grade validation studies for the next generation of cardiovascular and wearable technologies. Based on our experience, here’s what medical device manufacturers need to know to successfully achieve CE marking for their BP device—whether it’s a traditional cuff-based model or a cutting-edge, AI-powered cuffless solution. 

1. Understanding the CE Marking Process Under MDR 

The CE mark signifies conformity with European safety, performance, and quality requirements. For BP monitors, this means: 

• A compliant ISO 13485 Quality Management System (QMS): This serves as the operational backbone of a medical device company. QMS is the living framework that governs everything from design controls and supplier qualification to complaint handling and corrective actions. Under MDR, regulators scrutinize the QMS to ensure the manufacturer has robust, repeatable processes that prioritize quality and safety at every stage of the device lifecycle.  

• A complete Technical Documentation file including clinical data. The central dossier must tell a complete and coherent story, providing details on the device's design, manufacturing, and performance. It includes everything from specifications and verification/validation testing to labeling, and critically, it must be built around a strong core of clinical data that substantiates every claim of intended use as determined by the manufacturer.  

• A robust Clinical Evaluation Report (CER): It is a standalone, dynamic document that critically analyzes all available clinical data from the sponsor’s own validation studies, scientific literature, and data on equivalent devices to form a powerful argument for the device's safety, performance, and positive risk-benefit profile. Under MDR, the CER is not a one-time report; it must be continuously updated with post-market data.  

• Risk analysis aligned with ISO 14971: Proactively ensuring patient safety is non-negotiable. The risk management file, guided by the ISO 14971 standard, must demonstrate a systematic process for identifying, evaluating, and mitigating any potential risks associated with the device. Risk Management is an integral process that influences device design, manufacturing controls, and the information provided to users.  

• A plan for Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) and Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF): A manufacturer’s regulatory journey doesn't end at launch. The MDR requires a proactive, forward-looking plan for monitoring the device's real-world performance. The PMS plan outlines how the company will "listen" to the market (e.g., through complaint data and user feedback), while its PMCF plan details how it will "actively ask" for new clinical data to continuously confirm safety and performance over time. This establishes a continuous feedback loop that ensures the technical documentation and CER remain up to date.  

📌 Under MDR, BP devices (typically Class IIa or IIb) face higher evidentiary requirements, especially when software or AI is involved. 

2. Clinical Validation Requirements: ISO 81060-2 and Device-Specific Challenges 

The foundation of any successful BP device submission is proof of clinical accuracy. For non-invasive sphygmomanometers, this proof is established through rigorous validation against the universally recognized standard: ISO 81060-2. This protocol is a guideline for definitive benchmark performance; ensuring that a device is both safe and reliable for clinical use.

Key requirements include: 

• Comprehensive BP Range Validation: A device must prove its reliability not just at normal levels, but across the full spectrum of clinically relevant blood pressure readings. The study protocol must therefore ensure sufficient data points are collected from subjects with both high (hypertensive) and low (hypotensive) systolic and diastolic pressures, demonstrating consistent performance.

• Demonstrated Performance in a Diverse Population: Regulatory bodies require evidence that a device is accurate for the actual population that will use it. A validation study must therefore include a carefully stratified cohort of subjects representing a broad range of ages, sex, and arm circumferences.  

• Validation Against a Gold-Standard Comparator: Accuracy is not an abstract concept; it must be measured against a trusted reference. ISO 81060-2 mandates that the test devices readings be compared simultaneously against those from a reference method. This is typically done using the auscultatory method (the "two-observer" stethoscope technique) or another validated reference sphygmomanometer, providing a direct, objective measure of the new device's precision and bias. 

While ISO 81060-2 remains the benchmark for traditional devices, the explosion of innovation in cuffless and AI-powered blood pressure monitoring has created a regulatory gap. To address this, the international community is developing ISO 81060-7, a new standard specifically for the clinical validation of cuffless sphygmomanometers.

PRLs Approach: We conduct ISO-aligned clinical trials across multiple EU-relevant geographies and participant profiles, ensuring generalizability and MDR readiness. We are also a contributor to the ISO 81060-7 standard.  

3. Authoring the Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) 

The CER consolidates your device’s clinical evidence, including: 

• Clinical Study Results (formative and summative): This reflects firsthand evidence obtained through structured design and validation activities. The data from formative studies, such as early human factors or usability tests, that guided the device’s design and development. Results of the pivotal or summative validation study (e.g., ISO 81060-2 or the forthcoming ISO 81060-7) serve as the primary confirmation of the device’s clinical performance and accuracy claims.  

• Literature Review and Equivalence Analysis: This component places the device within the broader clinical context. The systematic literature review identifies the current state-of-the-art blood pressure monitoring, including established clinical practices and the performance of similar technologies. If a manufacturer intends to leverage clinical data from another device, they must perform a rigorous equivalence analysis.  

• A Definitive Risk-Benefit Assessment: While the ISO 14971 risk management file focuses on identifying and mitigating potential harms, Risk-Benefit assessment performs a different function. It systematically weighs the demonstrated clinical benefits of the device (e.g., providing accurate BP data, enabling better hypertension management) against any residual risks that remain after mitigation (e.g., potential for skin irritation or inaccurate readings). The report must conclude with a well-reasoned justification that the benefits for the patient and user population decisively outweigh these risks.

• Demonstrated Compliance with MDCG 2020-13 and Annex XIV, Part A: Adherence to regulatory guidance is not optional. The entire clinical evaluation process must follow the legal framework laid out in Annex XIV, Part A of the MDR. Furthermore, for devices incorporating software or AI, as many modern medical devices do, the report must align with specific guidance documents like MDCG 2020-13, which details the clinical evaluation of Software as a Medical Device (SaMD).

  
  

📌 The CER must stand on its own during Notified Body review—unsupported claims or vague equivalence arguments are no longer acceptable under MDR. 

PRL’s Approach: We deliver audit-ready reports with ISO 81060-2 or 81060-7 compliant data and subgroup performance insights to clearly support your BP monitor’s accuracy.

4. Working with Notified Bodies: Strategy and Support 

For BP device manufacturers, it is essential to partner with a Notified Body that has demonstrable and designated experience in several key areas:

• Expertise in Devices Governed by Rule 10 (Measuring Function): Under the MDR, devices that have a diagnostic or therapeutic function fall under specific classification rules. BP monitors, by their very nature, are intended to provide measurements of physiological processes. This typically places them under Rule 10, which classifies them as Class IIa or higher. A Notified Body experienced in this domain understands the heightened scrutiny applied to measuring devices. Their auditors and technical reviewers are adept at evaluating the validation data required to substantiate a physiological measurement claim and can distinguish between robust and insufficient evidence. 

• Competence in Wearable and AI-Integrated Diagnostics: The new generation of BP monitors is increasingly powered by software, complex algorithms, and artificial intelligence, often integrated into wearable form factors. This convergence of hardware and software introduces unique regulatory challenges related to algorithmic transparency, data integrity, cybersecurity, and the validation of "black box" systems. A Notified Body with proven competence in Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and AI-powered diagnostics will have established methodologies for these assessments, ensuring they are not navigating this complex and evolving landscape for the first time. 

  
  

PRL’s Advantage: By providing the core clinical formative and summative data required for your submission, we can support you from early development through final review to smooth your path to approval.

Conclusion: CE Approval Starts with Clinical Clarity 

Fundamentally, the CE mark represents a promise to patients and clinicians: that your BP device is safe, accurate, and reliable. To fulfill that promise under the EU MDR, innovators in digital health must master a triad of disciplines: meticulous clinical validation, proactive regulatory strategy, and documentation excellence. 

PRL delivers all three. We are your end-to-end partner for the critical components of a successful submission, providing meticulous ISO 81060-2 validation, expert Clinical Reports authorship, and comprehensive technical file assembly. Let's work together to navigate the complexities of the MDR and to bring your innovation to the European market.

📩 Ready to start your CE mark journey? Contact Parameters Research Lab today to design a validation strategy built for the European Unions’ rigorous Medical Device Regulation success. 

*See Disclaimer regarding AI-generated content