Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Routine Care - Factors Associated with Enrollment and Blood Pressures Recorded in the Veterans Health Administration.

Home or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the diagnosis of hypertension?

Cardiovascular Risk Associated With White-Coat Hypertension: Con Side of the Argument.

Hypertension is highly prevalent among kidney transplantation recipients and considered as an important cardiovascular risk factor influencing patient survival and kidney graft survival. Aim. Compare the blood pressure (BP) control in kidney transplant patients through the use of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is more comparable with the results of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring compared to the measurement of office blood pressure. From March 2008 to April 2009 prospectively were evaluated 183 kidney transplant recipients with time after transplantation between 1 and 10 years. Patients underwent three methods for measuring BP: office blood pressure measurement (oBP), HBPM and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). In total, 183 patients were evaluated, among them 94 were men (54%) and 89 women (46%). The average age was 50 ± 11 years. The average time of transplant was 57 ± 32 months. Ninety-nine patients received grafts from deceased donors (54%) and 84 were recipients of living donors (46%). When assessed using oBP, 56.3% presented with uncontrolled and 43.7% with adequate control of BP with an average of 138.9/82.3 ± 17.8/12.1 mmHg. However, when measured by HBPM, 55.2% of subjects were controlled and 44.8% presented with uncontrolled BP with an average of 131.1/78.5 ± 17.4/8.9 mmHg. Using the ABPM, we observed that 63.9% of subjects were controlled and 36.1% of patients presented uncontrolled BP with an average 128.8/80.5 ± 12.5/8.1 mmHg. We found that the two methods (oBP and HBPM) have a significant agreement, but the HBPM has a higher agreement that oBP, confirmed P = 0.026. We found that there is no symmetry in the data for both methods with McNemar test. The correlation index of Pearson linear methods for the ABPM with the other two methods were 0.494 for office measurement and 0.768 for HBPM, best value of HBPM with ABPM. Comparing the errors of the two methods by paired t-test, we obtained the descriptive level of 0.837. Looking at the receiver operating characteristic curve for BP measurements in each method, we observed that oBP is lower than those obtained by HBPM in relation to ABPM. We conclude that the results obtained with HBPM were closer to the ABPM results than those obtained with BP obtained at oBP, being more sensitive to detect poor control of hypertension in renal transplant recipients.

Objective: Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring using ambulatory BP (ABP) monitoring (ABPM) and home BP (HBP) monitoring (HBPM) is recommended for hypertension management. However, BP level measured by ABPM and HBPM may not be consistent even when evaluated the same time-window, morning. This study investigated the determinants of the difference between ABP and HBP in the morning time measured by a multisensor BP monitoring device equipped with a high-sensitivity actigraph and a thermometer. Design and method: Medicated hypertension patients enrolled in the Home-Activity ICT-based Japan Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Prospective (HI-JAMP) Study consecutively underwent office BP monitoring, 24-h ABPM (with 30-min intervals), and 5-day HBPM (twice each morning and evening) using the same multisensor BP monitoring device (TM-2441; A&D Company, Tokyo). Morning ABP (average of 4 readings within 2-h after waking) and morning HBP (average of HBP readings measured in the morning over a HBPM period) were compared. In addition, this device recorded the wearer's fine-scale physical movement during a 24-h ABPM period and stored temperature data at the time of each BP measurement. Hourly averages of physical activity and temperatures at the time of HBPM (i.e., room temperature) were used for the analysis. Results: Among 2322 patients (males 53.2%, 69.2±11.5 years, average office systolic BP [SBP] 132.8±18.8 mmHg), morning home SBP was 2.4 mmHg higher than morning ambulatory SBP with standard deviation of 15.9 mmHg (ABP < HBP). In a multivariable analysis including conventional risk factors, older age and larger number of antihypertensive agents were significantly associated with [HBP > ABP], while history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was significantly associated with [ABP > HBP]. In the analysis additionally including physical activity in the morning and room temperature at the morning HBP measurement, higher activity level was significantly contributed to [ABP > HBP] and lower room temperature was significantly contributed to [HBP > ABP]. Conclusions: In treated hypertensive patients, HBPM is recommended especially if the patient is older, taking multiple antihypertensive agents, or living in an environment with lower room temperatures in the winter, while ABPM is recommended if the patient has a history of CVD.

Out-of-office blood pressure measurement in children and adolescents

Introduction For practical reasons, blood pressure values measured by physicians or nurses in a medical environment remain the clinical basis of the diagnosis and management of arterial hypertension around the world as recommended by all guidelines [1–4]. Nevertheless, measurements of blood pressure outside the office have gained an increasing popularity over the last decades not only to ascertain the diagnosis of hypertension but also to follow the impact of therapeutic interventions. Out-of-office blood pressure measurements can be obtained either by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or by home blood pressure monitoring. As reviewed recently [5], both sets of out-of-office blood pressure offer undeniable advantages when compared to office blood pressure. First, both ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure monitoring provide more reliable and reproducible information on blood pressure. Second, blood pressure values obtained by ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure monitoring appear to be more closely related to target organ damage than office blood pressure and hence have a greater prognostic relevance than office blood pressure. Third, certain diagnosis such as white coat hypertension and masked hypertension can only be diagnosed using out-of-office blood pressure measurements. Fourth, when used in the clinical follow-up of treated hypertensive patients to evaluate the impact of drug treatment, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as well as home blood pressure monitoring has the advantage of not being affected by a placebo effect. Finally, evidence has been provided that treatmentinduced reduction in 24-h blood pressure may predict better than office blood pressure the regression of end organ damage (particularly the cardiac one) induced by antihypertensive drug. Many of these information have been achieved during the past two decades by a number of studies carried out in different populations around

he conventional measurement of blood pressure(BP) in the office or clinic has been the cornerstonefor hypertension management for decades. How-ever, because of the white-coat and the masked hyper-tension phenomena, out-of-office BP monitoring withambulatory or home measurements is often required [1].ExtensiveresearchonambulatoryBPmonitoringhasestab-lished its role as the most accurate tool for hypertensiondiagnosis [1–3].Onthecontrary,despitetheincreasinguseof home BP monitoring by hypertensive patients in thedaily management of their high BP condition, research inthisfield,inparticularwhenconsideringoutcometrials,hasbeen delayed as compared to ambulatory BP monitoring[4,5].

Managing White‐Coat Effect

Objective: Recent evidences indicate that both ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and home blood pressure monitoring are more useful than the measurement of office blood pressure for evaluating cardiovascular risks in subjects with hypertension. The major advantage of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring over home blood pressure monitoring is the ability to measure night time blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure during the day. A newly developed, programmable home blood pressure monitoring device (HEM-5041, OMRON Healthcare, Kyoto, Japan) can record blood pressure up to 600 times and measure night time blood pressure automatically. Design and Methods: To validate the utility, feasibility and safety of this device, we measured blood pressure by home blood pressure monitoring using HEM-5041 and by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and compared the values in healthy volunteers. Results: A total of 40 participants (28 men and 12 women; age ranging from 21 to 47, averaged age was 24.9±0.8 years) were enrolled in this study. Average height, body weight, and body mass index were 168.2±1.2 cm, 61.7±1.5 kg, and 26.7±0.4 kg/m2, respectively. Night time blood pressures did not significantly differ between home blood pressure monitoring and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. However, as compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, daytime blood pressures, coefficients of variation for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and pulse rate, and the % night time fall in these variables were significantly lower with home blood pressure monitoring. The results of a questionnaire survey indicated that the subjects were more comfortable when blood pressure measured by home blood pressure monitoring than by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, whereas the quality of sleep was similar. Conclusions: Our results suggest that HEM-5041 is useful for evaluating night time blood pressures as well as night time blood pressure falls, without causing clinically significant discomfort.

To assess the effectiveness of postpartum home blood pressure (BP) monitoring compared with clinic-based follow-up and the comparative effectiveness of alternative home BP-monitoring regimens. Search of Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 1, 2022, searching for home BP monitoring in postpartum individuals. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized comparative studies, and single-arm studies that evaluated the effects of postpartum home BP monitoring (up to 1 year), with or without telemonitoring, on postpartum maternal and infant outcomes, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. After double screening, we extracted demographics and outcomes to SRDR+. Thirteen studies (three RCTs, two nonrandomized comparative studies, and eight single-arm studies) met eligibility criteria. All comparative studies enrolled participants with a diagnosis of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. One RCT compared home BP monitoring with bidirectional text messaging with scheduled clinic-based BP visits, finding an increased likelihood that at least one BP measurement was ascertained during the first 10 days postpartum for participants in the home BP-monitoring arm (relative risk 2.11, 95% CI 1.68-2.65). One nonrandomized comparative study reported a similar effect (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.59, 95% CI 1.36-1.77). Home BP monitoring was not associated with the rate of BP treatment initiation (aRR 1.03, 95% CI 0.74-1.44) but was associated with reduced unplanned hypertension-related hospital admissions (aRR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.96). Most patients (83.3-87.0%) were satisfied with management related to home BP monitoring. Home BP monitoring, compared with office-based follow-up, was associated with reduced racial disparities in BP ascertainment by approximately 50%. Home BP monitoring likely improves ascertainment of BP, which is necessary for early recognition of hypertension in postpartum individuals, and may compensate for racial disparities in office-based follow-up. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that home BP monitoring reduces severe maternal morbidity or mortality or reduces racial disparities in clinical outcomes. PROSPERO, CRD42022313075.

See related article, pp 1081–1086 The growing worldwide epidemic of high blood pressure in both developed and developing nations is a challenge on many levels.1 The need for better prevention of cardiovascular disease through control of hypertension is clear.2 Public awareness of the need to treat hypertension is partly reflected by the widespread purchases of home blood pressure devices in several of the developed countries. In the United States, Japan, and Finland, the estimates are that 55% to 75% of hypertensive patients already have a home device.3 Research studies have provided a robust epidemiological basis for supporting the greater accuracy of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) compared with clinic pressures for prognosis of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease in long-term follow-up surveys and in cross-sectional designs.4 There is a general consensus that HBPM is more convenient, available, and less costly than ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, but the superiority of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for special clinical problems (ie, detection of nondippers or need for sleep pressures in chronic renal disease, autonomic neuropathies, and sleep apnea) is also clearly recognized.5 Surveys of both physicians6 and patients7 suggest that HBPM is both appreciated and recognized as a valuable strategy. Several experts in the field of hypertension research and care have published appeals to expand the use of HPBM for routine care and to have it supported by health care …

Out-of-Office Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Comparison of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Home (Self) Monitoring Of Blood Pressure.

Objective: Arterial hypertension (AH) is the most important independent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Unfortunately, less than half of adults with hypertension are diagnosed and treated. It is well known that home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is a useful method for follow-up and for detecting patients with asymptomatic hypertension. Home BP monitoring is inexpensive and well-accepted by patients, which are both great benefits for the screening method. The prevalence of AH in Croatia differs by region, in addition, residents of rural areas have poorer access to healthcare. The aim of this study was to find the prevalence of AH in subjects who did not report a medical history of AH and to find the prevalence of subjects who own home BP monitors in rural areas. Design and method: A total of 214 participants (opportunistic screening) were asked about previous AH diagnoses and whether they own a home BP monitor in our cross-sectional survey. BP was measured following ESH guidelines using Microlofe oscillometric device. AH stage 1 was considered if systolic BP was 130 mmHg or higher, or diastolic 80 mmHg or higher. Results: Out of a total of 214 respondents, 120 respondents (56%) reported that they had AH. In a group who answered that either they didn’t have or didn’t know if they had AH, high BP was measured in 61.96%. Interestingly, only 46 (21.5%) reported that they do not have a home BP monitor, and 168 participants (78.5 %) confirmed having a BP monitor at home. Conclusions: Our results revealed poor awareness of AH and showed the utility of the AH screening intervention, particularly in rural areas. More research is needed to determine the best screening methods and further applications for the general population. Our findings may also help healthcare workers to understand the potential of home BP monitoring for their patients because a large number of survey respondents even in rural areas own a BP monitor. This discovery can enhance the quality of patient education, patient-physician relationship, and follow-up practice for successful BP monitoring.

Can We Study Hypertension in Patients on Dialysis? Yes We Can

Hypertension remains the most common modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet hypertension control rates remain dismal. Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring has the potential to improve hypertension control. The purpose of this review was to quantify both the magnitude and mechanisms of benefit of home BP monitoring on BP reduction. Using a structured review, studies were selected if they reported either changes in BP or percentage of participants achieving a pre-established BP goal between randomized groups using home-based and office-based BP measurements. A random-effects model was used to estimate the magnitude of benefit and relative risk. The search yielded 37 randomized controlled trials with 9446 participants that contributed data for this meta-analysis. Compared with clinic-based measurements (control group), systolic BP improved with home-based BP monitoring (-2.63 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.24, -1.02); diastolic BP also showed improvement (-1.68 mm Hg; 95% CI, -2.58, -0.79). Reductions in home BP monitoring-based therapy were greater when telemonitoring was used. Home BP monitoring led to more frequent antihypertensive medication reductions (relative risk, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.32 to 3.11]) and was associated with less therapeutic inertia defined as unchanged medication despite elevated BP (relative risk for unchanged medication, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]). Compared with clinic BP monitoring alone, home BP monitoring has the potential to overcome therapeutic inertia and lead to a small but significant reduction in systolic and diastolic BP. Hypertension control with home BP monitoring can be enhanced further when accompanied by plans to monitor and treat elevated BP such as through telemonitoring.