BackgroundAutomated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement is superior to conventional office blood pressure (OBP) because it eliminates the “white coat effect” and shows a strong association with ambulatory blood pressure.Methods and ResultsWe conducted a cross‐sectional study in 146 participants with office hypertension, and we compared AOBP readings, taken with or without the presence of study personnel, before and after the conventional office readings to determine whether their variation in blood pressure showed a difference in blood pressure values. We also compared AOBP measurements with daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and conventional office readings. The mean age of the studied population was 56±12 years, and 53.4% of participants were male. Bland–Altman analysis revealed a bias (ie, mean of the differences) of 0.6±6 mm Hg systolic for attended AOBP compared with unattended and 1.4±6 and 0.1±6 mm Hg bias for attended compared with unattended systolic AOBP when measurements were performed before and after conventional readings, respectively. A small bias was observed when unattended and attended systolic AOBP measurements were compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (1.3±13 and 0.6±13 mm Hg, respectively). Biases were higher for conventional OBP readings compared with unattended AOBP (−5.6±15 mm Hg for unattended AOBP and oscillometric OBP measured by a physician, −6.8±14 mm Hg for unattended AOBP and oscillometric OBP measured by a nurse, and −2.1±12 mm Hg for unattended AOBP and auscultatory OBP measured by a second physician).ConclusionsOur findings showed that independent of the presence or absence of medical staff, AOBP readings revealed similar values that were closer to daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring than conventional office readings, further supporting the use of AOBP in the clinical setting.

: It is widely known that liver cirrhosis, regardless of the etiologies is accompanied by severe hemodynamic changes. The principal pathophysiological mechanisms are the hyper-dynamic circulation with increased cardiac output, heart rate along with reduced systemic vascular resistance. Thus, counteractive mechanisms may develop that eventually lead to systolic as well as diastolic dysfunction and rhythm disturbances, in order to keep a steady homeostasis in the human body. Literally, blunted contractile responsiveness to physical or pharmacological stress, impaired diastolic relaxation and electrophysiological changes, primarily QT interval prolongation, do occur progressively in a cirrhotic patient with no known preexisting cardiac disease. This condition is identified as cirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CCM), an entity different from that seen in alcoholic cardiac muscle disease. For the past decades, clinicians did study and attempt to understand the pathophysiology and clinical significance of this process. Indeed, various factors have been identified acting at the molecular and cellular level. Electrocardiography, echocardiography and various serum biomarkers are the main tools that help healthcare practitioners to point to the correct diagnosis. Noteworthy, the subjects that suffer from cirrhotic cardiomyopathy may progress to heart failure during invasive procedures such as surgery, insertion of a trans-jugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting (TIPS) and liver transplantation. Besides, several studies have illustrated that CCM is a contributing factor, or even a precipitant, of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), a conceivable reversible kidney failure in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites. The treatment is the same as it is in the patients with liver cirrhosis and heart failure and there is no particular treatment for cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. Hence, it is of outmost importance to clearly comprehend the pathophysiology of this disease in order to design more accurate diagnostic tools and definitive treatments in a way to prevent the complications of cirrhosis and overt heart failure. The objective of this review is to describe in a comprehensive way the pathological alterations that occur in the cardiovascular system of cirrhotic patients. It will also point the limitations that remain in the diagnosis and treatment strategies and more importantly this review will alert the clinicians in the modern era to further observe and record additional pathological changes in this subset of patients.

Results of the SPRINT study have been disputed, based on the assumption that unattended BP measurements do not correlate with usual BP measurements. In this study, the authors investigated the correlation of unattended SPRINT‐like measurements with other conventional measurements. All BP measurements were taken with the patient seated in a comfortable chair with the legs uncrossed and not speaking during the procedure. For the purpose of this study, sixty‐five patients, mostly male (93%), were recruited from our hypertension clinic and all were on antihypertensive medication (av 3.0 ± 1.1). Patients were at high cardiovascular risk with high rates of comorbidities, av age 68 ± 12 years, 49% with diabetes, 34% with mild CKD (CKD 1‐3, average eGFR 55.0 ± 13 mL/min/1.73 m2), and 20% with history of stable coronary artery disease. All BP measurements were similar with no statistically significant difference (one‐way ANOVA, P = 0.621). Compared to unattended SPRINT BP values (139.77 ± 19.22/75.42 ± 11.72 mm Hg), the clinic BP measurements were numerically slightly higher but with a NS P value (P = 0.163). Similarly, unattended BP measurements were similar to values taken by the clinic physician. In a smaller cohort of 11 patients, the authors compared unobserved vs observed SPRINT‐like BP measurements, and in 13 patients, the authors compared unobserved SPRINT‐like BP measurements to average home BP measurements (Table 3). There were no significant differences between any of the subgroups (one‐way ANOVA, P = 0.816 for systolic and P = 0.803 for diastolic). The authors conclude that unattended BP measurements taken (the SPRINT way) are similar to other conventional office blood pressure measurements.

No abstract

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement, attended or unattended, eliminates the white coat effect (WCE) showing a strong association with awake ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). This study examined the difference in AOBP readings, with and without 5 minutes of rest prior to three readings recorded at 1-min intervals.Cross-sectional data from 100 randomized selected hypertensives, 61 men and 39 women, with a mean age of 52.2 ± 10.8 years, 82% treated, were analyzed. The mean systolic AOBP values without preceding rest were 127.0 ± 18.2 mm Hg, and the mean systolic AOBP values with 5 minutes of preceding rest were 125.7 ± 17.9 mm Hg (P = .05). A significant order effect was observed for the mean systolic BP values when AOBP without 5 minutes of preceding rest was performed as the first measurement (130.0 ± 17.7 vs 126.5 ± 16.2, P = .008). When we used a target systolic AOBP ≥ 130 mm Hg, awake ABP yielded lower readings, while at a target systolic AOBP value of < 130 mm Hg higher awake ABP values were obtained. Our findings indicate that systolic AOBP can be initially checked without any preceding rest and if readings are normal can be accepted. Otherwise, when AOBP is ≥ 130 mm Hg, measurements should be rechecked with 5 minutes of rest.