A multicentre study on unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in treated hypertensive patients

Filipovský, Jan; Seidlerová, Jitka; Ceral, Jiří; Vysočanová, Petra; Špác, Jiří; Souček, Miroslav; Řiháček, Ivan; Mateřánková, Markéta; König, P; Rosolová, Hana

doi:10.1080/08037051.2018.1425606

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That it is R2, not R1 that often exceeded the remaining measurements is consistent with reports that discarding R1 increased the average BP estimate and did not improve the correlation between office and daytime ambulatory measurements 38 . In a recent study of 172 participants, the average of 3 office measurements exceeded 24‐hour mean BP in hypertensive patients, but was lower in normotensive individuals 39 . Together with the present findings, this study suggests that using the first 2‐3 reads may paradoxically overestimate BP in hypertensive individuals, although this needs to be confirmed using ambulatory measurements.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Blood pressure measurement protocol determines hypertension phenotypes in a Middle Eastern population

Warda

Elshorbagy

Habib³

et al. 2020

J of Clinical Hypertension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinic blood pressure (BP) measurement remains a crucial step in managing hypertension. While the number of measures recorded in different settings varies, with typically 1‐3 measures, there has been no prior justification for the actual number of measures required. We investigated the pattern of BP variability over 5 consecutive automated readings (R1‐R5) and the influence of patient characteristics on this pattern to identify the phenotype of hypertension in a Middle Eastern population. There were 1389 outpatients (51% men, 49% women), age range (18‐87 y) who had 5 unattended automated consecutive BP measurements with one‐minute intervals using the validated Datascope Mindray Passport V Monitor with the patient blinded from the results. Mean (±SEM) SBP for R1 (136.0 ± 2 mm Hg) was similar to R2 (136.2 ± 2 mm Hg). Thereafter SBP progressively declined till R5 by total of 5.5 mm Hg. The SBP decline was less (4.2 mm Hg) in older (>50 years) vs younger participants (8.1 mm Hg; P < .001) and was blunted in diabetic and hypertensive participants. Overall, 43% of participants had R2 > R1, and 24% additionally had R5 > R1. Age was a strong independent predictor of having both R2 > R1 and R5 > R1, as well as diabetes. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased by average 2.8 mm Hg from R1 to R5. Females had a 5‐fold greater total decline in DBP vs males (P < .001). Using the mean of 5 BP measures resulted in fewer participants being classified as hypertensive (36% of the population) compared to using one measurement (46%), or established BP guidelines which use different combinations of R1‐R3 (37%‐42%). Our findings in a Middle Eastern population highlight the importance of the BP measurement protocol in combination with patient characteristics in determining whether a patient is diagnosed with hypertension. Protocols that rely on different combinations of only 3 measures (R1‐3) will classify more participants as hypertensive, compared to using 5 measures or disregarding a high R2.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Blood pressure measurement protocol determines hypertension phenotypes in a Middle Eastern population

Warda

Elshorbagy

Habib³

et al. 2020

J of Clinical Hypertension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 Thus, the treatment arm including patients with systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg in SPRINT very likely compares with higher systolic BP values when measured normally in a physician's office. This was actually demon strated by Filipovski et al 15 16 have actual ly maintained the 140/90 mm Hg cut off defin ing hypertension. This is also true for Poland.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

Controversies in the management of patients with arterial hypertension

Burnier

2019

Kardiol Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only attrition bias was relevant in 7 studies due to missing data (BP readings missing, patients lost at follow-up). 16 studies compared AOBP with traditional OBP taken by physicians 4,8,10,12,19,[21][22][23][24]27,28,30,[32][33][34]37 ; 16 studies compared AOBP with awake ABPM 4,8,10,18,19,20,22,[24][25][26]29,[33][34][35]37,38 ; AOBP was compared with HBPM in 7 studies 10,12,24,27,28,30,38 and with non-physician OBP in 10 studies 4,8,15,[18][19][20]31,[36][37][38] .…”

Section: Characteristic Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Automated Office Blood Pressure With Office and Out-Off-Office Measurement Techniques

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) has emerged as valuable tool to assess patient's blood pressure (BP) status, but the lack of strong evidences to establish a threshold value for hypertension diagnosis limits its use in clinical practice. We aimed at synthesizing the published literature through a meta-analysis of studies comparing AOBP with other BP measurement techniques and at analysing the differences between AOBP and physician's office BP, non-physician's office BP, daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM). We searched PubMed database for articles published up to April 2018; eligible studies compared AOBP with office and/or out-of-office measurement techniques and reported the BP differences or BP values obtained. Twenty-six studies, for a total of 7,116 patients were included in the analysis. AOBP values were lower than physician (systolic blood pressure, SBP-10.48 mmHg [95% CI-13.15 to-7.81] / diastolic blood pressure, DBP-4.44 mmHg [95% CI-6.07 to-2.80]) and non-physician office ones (SBP-6.89 mmHg [95% CI-8.75 to-5.04] / DBP-3.82 mmHg [95% CI-4.86 to-2.78]). No significant differences were detected between AOBP and daytime ABPM (SBP-1.85 mmHg [95% CI-4.50 to 0.79] / DBP 0.12 mmHg [95% CI-1.42 to 1.66]) and HBPM (SBP-2.65 mmHg [95% CI-8.42 to 3.12]) / DBP-1.67 mmHg [95% CI-4.20 to 0.87]). AOBP readings did not differ significantly from out-of-office blood pressure, still remaining an office technique; it may improve hypertension diagnosis by overcoming some of office BP limitations, including the white-coat effect.

show abstract

A multicentre study on unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in treated hypertensive patients

Cited by 17 publications

References 11 publications

Blood pressure measurement protocol determines hypertension phenotypes in a Middle Eastern population

Blood pressure measurement protocol determines hypertension phenotypes in a Middle Eastern population

Controversies in the management of patients with arterial hypertension

Comparison of Automated Office Blood Pressure With Office and Out-Off-Office Measurement Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About