Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Auttakiat Karnjanapiboonwong,Usa Chaikledkaew,John Attia,Ammarin Thakkinstian,Charungthai Dejthevaporn,Thunyarat Anothaisintawee

doi:10.1186/s12872-020-01736-2

Abstract

BackgroundClinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, however it might have a problem detecting white coat hypertension (WCHT) and masked hypertension (MHT). Home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) may be an alternative, but its diagnostic performance is inconclusive relative to CBPM. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to estimate the performance of CBPM and HBPM compared with ambulatory blood pressure measurement(ABPM) and to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT.MethodsMedline, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were searched up to 23rd January 2020. Studies having diagnostic tests as CBPM or HBPM with reference standard as ABPM, reporting sensitivity and specificity of both tests and/or proportion of WCHT or MHT were eligible. Diagnostic performance of CBPM and HBPM were pooled using bivariate mixed-effect regression model. Random effect model was applied to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT.ResultsFifty-eight studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of CBPM, when using 24-h ABPM as the reference standard, were 74% (95% CI: 65–82%), 79% (95% CI: 69%, 87%), and 11.11 (95% CI: 6.82, 14.20), respectively. Pooled prevalence of WCHT and MHT were 0.24 (95% CI 0.19, 0.29) and 0.29 (95% CI 0.20, 0.38). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of HBPM were 71% (95% CI 61%, 80%), 82% (95% CI 77%, 87%), and 11.60 (95% CI 8.98, 15.13), respectively.ConclusionsDiagnostic performances of HBPM were slightly higher than CBPM. However, the prevalence of MHT was high in negative CBPM and some persons with normal HBPM had elevated BP from 24-h ABPM. Therefore, ABPM is still necessary for confirming the diagnosis of HT.

Highlights

Clinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, it might have a problem detecting white coat hypertension (WCHT) and masked hypertension (MHT)
Patients may have falsely high BP only in the clinical setting, i.e., a phenomenon known as white coat hypertension(WCHT), or they may have normal BP in the clinic but have an elevated BP measured by outoff office blood pressure measurement (i.e. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) or Home blood pressure measurement (HBPM)), known as masked hypertension (MHT) [2]
The findings suggest that when using 24-h ABPM as the reference standard, diagnostic performances of HBPM were slightly higher than those of CBPM

Summary

Introduction

Clinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, it might have a problem detecting white coat hypertension (WCHT) and masked hypertension (MHT). This systematic review aimed to estimate the performance of CBPM and HBPM compared with ambulatory blood pressure measurement(ABPM) and to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT. Patients may have falsely high BP only in the clinical setting, i.e., a phenomenon known as white coat hypertension(WCHT), or they may have normal BP in the clinic but have an elevated BP measured by outoff office blood pressure measurement (i.e. ABPM or HBPM), known as masked hypertension (MHT) [2]. HBPM may have the potential of measurement error and incorrect classification of BP status, especially in persons having high nocturnal BP [1]

Methods

Results

Conclusion