Home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring is recommended for assessing the effects of antihypertensive treatment, but it is not clear how the treatment-induced changes in HBP compare with the changes in clinic BP (CBP). We searched PubMed using the terms “home or self-measured blood pressure,” and selected articles in which the changes in CBP and HBP (using the upper arm oscillometric method) induced by antihypertensive drugs were presented. We performed a systematic review of 30 articles published before March 2008 that included a total of 6794 subjects. As there was significant heterogeneity in most of the outcomes, a random effects model was used for the meta-analyses. The mean changes (± standard error) in CBP and HBP (systolic/diastolic) were -15.2±0.03/-10.3±0.03 mmHg and -12.2±0.04/-8.0±0.04 mmHg respectively, although there were wide varieties of differences in the reduction between HBP and CBP. The reductions in CBP were correlated with those of HBP (systolic BP; r=0.66, B=0.48, diastolic BP; r=0.71, B=0.52, P<0.001). In 7 studies that also included 24-hour BP monitoring, the reduction of HBP was greater than that of 24-hr BP in systolic (HBP; -12.6±0.06 mmHg, 24-hr BP; -11.9±0.04 mmHg, P<0.001). In 5 studies that included daytime and nighttime systolic BP separately, HBP decreased 15% more than daytime ambulatory BP and 30% more than nighttime ambulatory BP. In conclusion, HBP falls about 20% less than CBP with antihypertensive treatments. Daytime systolic BP falls 15% less and nighttime systolic BP falls 30% less than home systolic BP.

BACKGROUND: Measurements of cardiac output with the thermodilution technique add to data for clinical decision making and therefore must be valid and reliable. However, the results of studies on the accuracy of values obtained with room-temperature and iced injectates, especially in patients with high or low cardiac output, have been conflicting. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the temperature of the injectate (iced or room temperature) on cardiac output values obtained with the thermodilution technique in critically ill adults with known low cardiac output. METHODS: A convenience sample of 50 subjects (41 men and 9 women) who had a cardiac index of less than 2.5 (calculated as cardiac output in liters per minute divided by body surface area in square meters) before the study had cardiac output measured by using a closed system and manual injections of room-temperature and iced injectates. RESULTS: A paired t test indicated no significant difference between iced and room-temperature injectates for cardiac output (iced, 3.62 L/min; room temperature, 3.71 L/min; t = 0.99; P = .327) and cardiac index (iced, 1.95; room temperature, 1.99; t = 0.71; P = .482). CONCLUSION: The findings support the practice of using room-temperature injectate to measure cardiac output in patients with low cardiac output.