Comparison between unattended automated office blood pressure and conventional office blood pressure under the environment of health checkup among Japanese general population.

Abstract

Unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement has been endorsed as the preferred in-office measurement modality in recent Canadian and American clinical practice guidelines. However, the difference between AOBP and conventional office blood pressure (CBP) under the environment of a health checkup remains unclear. We aimed to identify the clinical significance of AOBP as compared to CBP under the environment of a health checkup. There were 491 participants (333 females, mean age of 62.5years) who were at least 20years old, including 179 participants who were previously diagnosed with hypertension. Mean AOBPs were 131.8±20.9/76.6±11.7mmHg, and CBPs were 135.6±21.6/77.3±11.5mmHg. There was a difference of 3.9mmHg in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 0.8mmHg in diastolic BP between AOBP and CBP. In all participants, SBP and pulse pressure, as well as the white coat effect (WCE), increased with age. The cutoff value used was 140/90mmHg for CBP and 135/85mmHg for AOBP, and the prevalence of WCE and masked hypertension effect (MHE) was 12.4% and 14.1%, respectively. Even in a health checkup environment of the general population, there was a difference between the AOBP and CBP, and the WCE was observed more strongly in the elderly with a history of hypertension, suggesting that a combination of AOBP with CBP may be useful in detecting WCE and MHE in all clinical scenarios including health checkups, and help solve the "hypertension paradox" not only in Japan but in all over the world.