Improving blood pressure management and control with out- of- office blood pressure monitoring.

Blood pressure (BP) control at home is difficult when managed only with office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM). In this prospective study, the reliability of BP measurements in renal transplant patients with OBPM and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) was compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as the gold standard. Adult patients who had living-related renal transplantation from March 2007 to February 2008 had BP measured by two methods; OBPM and ABPM at pretransplantation, 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 9th months and all the three methods: OBPM, ABPM, and HBPM at 6 months after transplantation. A total of 49 patients, age 35 ± 11 years, on prednisolone, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate were evaluated. A total of 39 were males (79.6%). Systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) measured by OBPM were higher than HBPM when compared with ABPM. When assessed using OBPM and awake ABPM, both SBP and DBP were significantly overestimated by OBPM with mean difference of 3-12 mm Hg by office SBP and 6-8 mm Hg for office DBP. When HBPM was compared with mean ABPM at 6 months both the SBP and DBP were overestimated by and 7 mm Hg respectively. At 6 months post transplantation, when compared with ABPM, OBPM was more specific than HBPM in diagnosing hypertension (98% specificity, Kappa: 0.88 vs. 89% specificity, Kappa: 0.71). HBPM was superior to OBPM in identifying patients achieving goal BP (89% specificity, Kappa: 0.71 vs. 50% specificity Kappa: 0.54). In the absence of a gold standard for comparison the latent class model analysis still showed that ABPM was the best tool for diagnosing hypertension and monitoring patients reaching targeted control. OBPM remains an important tool for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in renal transplant recipients. HBPM and ABPM could be used to achieve BP control.

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 (BP) monitoring is becoming increasingly important in the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Home BP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) are the two forms of monitoring BP in the out-of-office environment. Home BP monitoring is easy to perform, inexpensive, and engages patients in the care of their hypertension. Although ABPM is expensive and not widely available, it remains the gold standard for diagnosing hypertension. Observational studies show that both home BP and ABPM are stronger predictors of hypertension-related outcomes than office BP monitoring. There are no clinical trials showing their superiority over office BP monitoring in guiding the treatment of hypertension, but the consistency of observational data make a compelling case for their preferential use in clinical practice.

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring: Profiles in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients and Utility in Management.

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].

ObjectiveOur objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) on blood pressure (BP) control and patient outcomes.DesignA systematic review was conducted. We also appraised the methodological quality of studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL).Inclusion criteriaRandomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, observational studies, and case-control studies published in English from any year to present that describe HBPM and 24-hour ABPM and report on systolic and/or diastolic BP and/or heart attack, stroke, kidney failure and/or all-cause mortality for adult patients. Due to the nature of the question, studies with only untreated patients were not considered.ResultsOf 1,742 titles and abstractions independently reviewed by two reviewers, 137 studies met predetermined criteria for evaluation. Nineteen studies were identified as relevant and included in the paper. The common themes were that HBPM and ABPM correlated with cardiovascular events and mortality, and targeting HBPM or ABPM resulted in similar outcomes. Associations between BP measurement type and mortality differed by study population. Both the low sensitivity of office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) to detect optimal BP control by ABPM and the added association of HBPM with cardiovascular mortality supported the routine use of HBPM in clinical practice. There was insufficient data to determine the benefit of using HBPM as a measurement standard for BP control.ConclusionHBPM encourages patient-centered care and improves BP control and patient outcomes. Given the limited number of studies with both HBPM and ABPM, these measurement types should be incorporated into the design of randomized clinical trials within hypertensive populations.

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

Managing White‐Coat Effect

Uncertainty exists when relying on office (clinic) blood pressure (BP) measurements to diagnose hypertension. Home BP monitoring and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) provide measurements that are more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease. The degree to which patients exhibit uncertainty about office BP measurements is unknown, as is whether they would have less uncertainty about other BP measurement methods. We therefore assessed people's confidence in methods of BP measurement, comparing perceptions about office BP monitoring, home BP monitoring, and ABPM techniques. We surveyed adults who were 30 years or older (n=193), all whom had undergone office BP measurements, two sessions of 24-h ABPM, and two 5-day periods of home BP monitoring. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of confidence on a 1 to 9 scale that BP measurements represented their 'usual' BP. Respondents had least confidence that assessments of BP made by office measurements (median 6) represented usual BP and greater confidence that assessments made by home BP monitoring (median 7, P<0.0001 vs. office) and ABPM (median 8, P<0.0001 vs. office) did so. Confidence levels did not vary significantly by BP levels, age, sex, race, or education level. The finding that patients do not have a great deal of confidence in office BP measurements, but have a higher degree of confidence in home BP and ambulatory BP assessment methods may be helpful in guiding strategies to diagnose hypertension and improve antihypertensive medication adherence.

Global Impact of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension Guidelines.

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

Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool to refine prediction of cardiovascular risk related to blood pressure (BP).1 After the first landmark study published by Perloff and colleagues 24 years ago,2 several longitudinal event-based studies provided unequivocal evidence of an independent association between ABP and risk of cardiovascular disease. Although experimental procedures and statistical analyses varied from study to study, ABP generally improved cardiovascular risk stratification over and beyond traditional risk factors, including clinic BP.3 The Table, obtained through an electronic search of literature using the terms “ambulatory blood pressure” and “prognosis,” shows a list of longitudinal event-based studies performed by independent groups. It is worth noting that the list of available studies is longer because each group generally published other analyses of their database. Only the first-appearing or main contribution from each group has been included in the Table. View this table: Longitudinal Event-Based Studies From Independent Groups That Addressed the Prognostic Value of ABP Article p 2145 Three aspects of available investigations deserve special mention. First, the prognostic value of ABP has been examined not only in subjects with clinical diagnosis of hypertension but also in the general population and in a variety of settings, including diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and cerebrovascular disease. Second, subjects could be untreated or treated at the time of ABP monitoring. This point may raise concerns, because drug treatment could exert unpredictable effects on 24-hour ABP profile and, consequently, interpretation and applicability of results. Third, although a continuous relation emerged in most studies between ABP and cardiovascular risk, several investigators tried to define clinical categories based on arbitrary thresholds of ABP. Although such categories are potentially useful to make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in clinical practice, their prognostic role requires confirmation from large and independent cohort …

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

Objectives: To assess the evidence for the usefulness of self-measurement of blood pressure (SMBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as part of the evaluation and follow-up of hypertensive individuals in the prognosis of cardiovascular disease, blood pressure control and cost-effectiveness compared with isolated office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) and to assess the prognostic value of daytime and night time blood pressure (BP), and the day/night blood pressure ratio, as measured by ABPM. Data Sources: Medline and Evidence-Based Medicine databases. Review methods:A survey of clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, clinical trials and observational studies, published between January 2000 and May 2011 was performed using the MeSH term “Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory” and the key words “Self Blood Pressure Monitoring” and “Home Blood Pressure Monitoring”. The SORT scale of the American Family Physician was applied to grade the evidence. Conclusions: Thirty eight articles were selected for analysis. These included four clinical practice guidelines, two systematic reviews, nine meta-analysis, 19 clinical trials and four observational studies. Each of the ambulatory blood pressure measurements studied provides a reduction in the white coat effect, with not only a stronger association with cardiovascular events, but also a higher degree of control of blood pressure. Ambulatory evaluation of blood pressure also reduces costs through the reduction in the costs of medication and other treatments. For each of the ambulatory blood pressure measurement techniques studied, there is evidence that their use can provide a more accurate diagnostic and prognostic evaluation (strength of recommendation A for ABPM and strength of recommendation B for SBPM). These methods may result in better control of blood pressure in the hypertensive patient (strength of recommendation A for both ABPM and SBPM). Ambulatory measurement may also reduce costs (strength of recommendation B for both ABPM and SBPM).

Home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: when? who?