Abstract-Previous studies have reported results on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in Europe and Japan, but no data exists from South America. In this study, we conducted a population survey to identify reference values and to compare ambulatory blood pressure with clinic, home, and self-measured values. A random sample of 2650 adults was selected among 190 000 people covered by our prepaid healthcare institution. Clinic (physician and nurse) and home (nurse) blood pressure measurements were performed 3 times each, with semiautomatic electronic equipment. Self-measurements were performed by the subjects manually activating the ambulatory device. We analyzed 1573 individuals who were not receiving antihypertensive therapy from 1921 participants. Self-measurement was available in a subgroup of 577 participants younger than the whole sample. Evidence of the risks of arterial hypertension and the benefits of its treatment are based on casual blood pressure (BP) measurements. 7,8 Nevertheless, BP can be measured in different environments (clinic, home, and workplace), by different personnel (physician, nurse, or patient), and with a conventional sphygmomanometer or ABP devices. This introduces the problem of the correspondence among BP values measured in these different ways and situations, with its practical implications in the usual care of normotensive and hypertensive individuals. Correlation among ABP and the remaining BP measurement methods have been published in the above referred studies, but no one has compared the BP measured by a physician at clinic with BP measured by a nurse at clinic or at home, self-measured BP, and 24-hour ABP in the same sample. The purpose of this study was to estimate normal values of 24-hour ABP in an Uruguayan population and to perform a direct comparison of ABP results with clinic (physician and nurse), home, and self-measured BP values.

Major adverse cardiovascular events are closely associated with 24-hour blood pressure (BP). We determined outcome-driven thresholds for 24-hour mean arterial pressure (MAP), a BP index estimated by oscillometric devices. We assessed the association of major adverse cardiovascular events with 24-hour MAP, systolic BP (SBP), and diastolic BP (DBP) in a population-based cohort (n=11 596). Statistics included multivariable Cox regression and the generalized R 2 statistic to test model fit. Baseline office and 24-hour MAP averaged 97.4 and 90.4 mm Hg. Over 13.6 years (median), 2034 major adverse cardiovascular events occurred. Twenty-four-hour MAP levels of <90 (normotension, n=6183), 90 to <92 (elevated MAP, n=909), 92 to <96 (stage-1 hypertension, n=1544), and ≥96 (stage-2 hypertension, n=2960) mm Hg yielded equivalent 10-year major adverse cardiovascular events risks as office MAP categorized using 2017 American thresholds for office SBP and DBP. Compared with 24-hour MAP normotension, hazard ratios were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.80–1.16), 1.32 (1.15–1.51), and 1.77 (1.59–1.97), for elevated and stage-1 and stage-2 hypertensive MAP. On top of 24-hour MAP, higher 24-hour SBP increased, whereas higher 24-hour DBP attenuated risk ( P <0.001). Considering the 24-hour measurements, R 2 statistics were similar for SBP (1.34) and MAP (1.28), lower for DBP than for MAP (0.47), and reduced to null, if the base model included SBP and DBP; if the ambulatory BP indexes were dichotomized according to the 2017 American guideline and the proposed 92 mm Hg for MAP, the R 2 values were 0.71, 0.89, 0.32, and 0.10, respectively. In conclusion, the clinical application of 24-hour MAP thresholds in conjunction with SBP and DBP refines risk estimates.