Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement Research Articles

ACCURACY OF SHORTER PROTOCOLS FOR AUTOMATED OFFICE BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS

Abstract Objective: Blood pressure measurement (BPM) is one of the most often performed procedures in clinical practice but especially office BPM is prone to errors. Automated office BPM (AOBPM) is highly standardised and compares well to ambulatory BPM but is time and space consuming since the patient is placed alone during the procedure. With this analysis we compared the accuracy of different calculation methods to evaluate if an abbreviation of the AOBP protocol is possible. Design and method: In our retrospective single centre study, we used all AOBPM (AOBPM protocol of the SPRINT study), collected over 14 months. Three sequential BPM (after 5 minutes of rest, spaced 2 minutes) were automatically recorded with the patient alone in a quiet room resulting in three systolic (S1S2S3) and diastolic (D1D2D3) values. We compared the result of the first BPM (S1/D1) and the mean of the first two BPM (S1S2/D1D2) with the mean of all three BPM (S1S2S3/D1D2D3) which was regarded as goldstandard for AOBPM. Results: We analysed 413 AOBP sets from 210 patients with a median age of 52 years (IQR 38–66). Median mmHg (IQR) for S1, S1S2 and S1S2S3 were 128.0 (117.0–142.0), 127.5 (117.0–140.0), 127.7 (116.8–139.2) and for D1, D1D2 and D1D2D3 80.0 (75.0–86.5), 80.0 (75.5–86.5), 80.3 (75.7–86.5), respectively. A Wilcoxon signed rank test determined that there was a statistically significant median increase of systolic blood pressure (BP) applying S1 compared to S1S2S3 (0.3mmHg, z = 2.315, p = 0.021) but not for S1S2 vs S1S2S3. For diastolic BP there was a no statistically significant difference for D1 vs. D1D2D3 but for D1D2 vs. D1D2D3 (0.2mmHg, z = 2.05, p = 0.040). Regarding agreement absolute difference was within 2 mmHg in 85.5% of the AOBPM comparing S1S2 vs. S1S1S3 and 93.2% for D1D2 vs D1D2D3, respectively (for all comparisons see table). Bland-Altman plots for all comparisons are shown in the figure. Conclusions: Based on our results differences between S1S2 vs S1S2S3 and D1D2 vs D1D2D3 are minimal and within acceptable limits of agreement. Therefore the automated procedure may be shorted to 2 measurements.

INFLUENCE OF RESTING HEART RATE ON BLOOD PRESSURE LOWERING EFFECT

Objective: Elevated resting heart rate (RHR) identifies hypertensive subjects at higher cardiovascular risk. The study was aimed to compare benefit of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering in subjects with higher and lower RHR. Design and method: The analysis was performed using Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) data shared by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. SPRINT trial assessed intensive lowering of systolic BP to a target < 120 mm Hg in comparison to standard goal (< 140 mm Hg). Baseline RHR was estimated as a pulse rate obtained during automated office BP measurements at first study visit. RHR higher than 80 b.p.m. was defined as increased according to current European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Composite outcome event (CE) included myocardial infarction and other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure decompensation and cardiovascular death. Cox proportional model was used to assess impact of BP lowering in subjects with RHR higher and lower than 80 bpm. P-value for interaction between study BP intervention and baseline RHR. Results: Data of 9361 SPRINT participants, aged 67.9 ± 9.4 years, were analyzed. 3332 (35.6%) were female an 1877 (20.1%) were diagnosed with prior cardiovascular disease. Mean baseline RHR was 66.3 ± 11.6 b.p.m. Baseline HR in both treatment arms was similar (standard arm 66.3 ± 11.7 b.p.m. vs intensive arm 66.2 ± 11.5 b.p.m., p = 0.762) 1198 (12.8%) participants had baseline RHR higher than 80 b.p.m. and experienced 78 (6.8%) CE events. There were 484 (5.9%) events among subjects with RHR lower than 80 b.p.m. Intensive lowering of systolic BP was beneficial both in subjects with elevated RHR (hazard ratio 0.79 with 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.24, p = 0.311) and non-elevated RHR (hazard ratio 0.75 with 95% CI 0.62–0.89, p = 0.002). The intervention between study BP intervention and baseline RHR was not significant (p for interaction 0.819). Conclusions: Elevated RHR does not influence effect of BP reduction on cardiovascular events risk.

Automated office blood pressure measurement by elderly patients in the waiting room.

Unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) may be a better estimate of true blood pressure (BP) than conventional office BP by physicians or nurses. However, measurement of AOBP is cumbersome in general clinical practice. We compared unattended AOBP by the patients themselves using the rigid cuff in the waiting room with attended AOBP and home BP (HBP) (N = 72). Unattended AOBP by patients was measured in the waiting room using a rigid cuff with the fully automated device (Omron, HEM-907, triple BP readings taken at 1-min intervals after 5 min of rest). Attended AOBP was measured using a soft cuff by a physician in an examination room without specific resting time. HBP was measured for 5 consecutive days. The mean age was 76.5 ± 8.6 years. The mean systolic unattended AOBP by patients, attended AOBP and HBP were 139.3 ± 16.6, 144.8 ± 17.1 and 139.1 ± 14.4 mmHg, respectively. Unattended AOBP by patients was significantly related to attended AOBP (r = 0.798; P < 0.01) and to HBP (r = 0.404; P < 0.001). It was significantly lower than attended AOBP (difference 5.5 ± 10.7 mmHg; P < 0.001) and comparable with HBP (difference 0.26 ± 17.0 mmHg; P = 0.90) in Bland-Altman plots. However, 22% of patients had a difference of over 20 mmHg between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP. Multivariate regression demonstrated older age (B = -0.73; P = 0.002) to be related to the difference between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP. The mean unattended AOBP by patients was lower than attended AOBP and comparable with HBP, but older age affected the difference between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP.

Attended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement Versus Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in a Primary Healthcare Setting in Chile.

As part of the HEARTS in the Americas initiative, Chilean primary healthcare centers have implemented novel hypertension management strategies, including new diagnostic approaches. This study evaluated the concordance between attended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements with an oscillometric device and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). This was an observational cohort study to evaluate and compare attended AOBP and ABPM for the diagnosis of hypertension in adults in a primary healthcare setting. The study evaluated 309 participants (54.2 ± 15.7 years; 50.5% male) from four primary healthcare centers in Santiago, Chile. Attended AOBP measurements were obtained at the clinic on two separate days, followed by ABPM. AOBP values indicated that 69.6% of patients had a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≥140 mm Hg and 34.6% had a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of ≥90 mm Hg. A total of 83.5% had hypertension, 45.3% had high SBP, and 56.0% had high DBP. ABPM values indicated that 65.0% of patients had hypertension. The combined AOBP and ABPM analysis showed that 57.0% of patients had sustained hypertension, 26.5% had white coat hypertension, 8.1% had masked hypertension, and 8.4% were normotensive. The concordance between AOBP and ABPM (κ coefficient) was low (κ = 0.133; 95% confidence interval 0.028-0.237). The comparison of AOBP and ABPM measurements (Bland-Altman plots and bias calculations) showed an important bias in BP as measured using the AOBP method, especially for SBP (13.7 ± 11.6, 95% confidence interval -9.1 to 36.5). Attended AOBP alone may not be sufficient for adequate classification, diagnosis, and management of hypertension in Chile or other countries with similar demographics.

Determination of the optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated office measurements in patients without cardiovascular disease.

Optimal diastolic blood pressure (DBP) during antihypertensive treatment in patients without a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unknown. This post‑hoc analysis of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) data aimed to determine the optimal DBP evaluated using automated office blood pressure measurements (AOBPM) in hypertensive patients without a history of CVD. Data of 1470 patients with CVD and 7117 patients without CVD were used. Clinical composite endpoint (CE) was defined as the occurrence of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome other than myocardial infarction, decompensation of heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death. Two different approaches based on the hazard ratio plot were used to identify the optimal DBP range. The first approach was to determine the 10 mm Hg-wide DBP range with the lowest risk for CE. In the second approach, it was assumed that the hazard ratio of CE at the boundary points of the optimal DBP range should be the same in patients with and without CVD. Two ranges of on-treatment DBP were proposed: 73.7 to 83.7 mm Hg (first approach) and 63.6 to 95.8 mm Hg (second approach). The risk for CE was increased by 3% and 20% at the boundary points of the range, respectively, depending on the method of DBP determination. Due to the fact that the range determined by the second method was wide and substantially different from the one recommended by the European Society of Cardiology (70-79 mm Hg), we have concluded that a DBP range of 73.7 to 83.7 mm Hg, measured using AOBPM, should be considered optimal in patients without CVD.

Office blood pressure measurement: A comprehensive review.

The conventional auscultatory methods for measuring blood pressure have been used to screen, diagnose, and manage hypertension since long. However, these have been found to be prone to errors especially the white coat phenomena which cause falsely high blood pressure readings. The Mercury sphygmomanometer and the Aneroid variety are no longer recommended by WHO for varying reasons. The Oscillometric devices are now recommended with preference for the Automated Office Blood Pressure measurement device which was found to have readings nearest to the Awake Ambulatory Blood Pressure readings. The downside for this device is the cost barrier. The alternative is to use the simple oscillometric device, which is much cheaper, with the rest and isolation criteria of the SPRINT study. This too may be difficult due to space constraints and the post‐clinic blood measurement is a new concept worth further exploration.

Human Errors in Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement: Still Room for Improvement.

In this review of the literature and commentary, we examine the literature on automated blood pressure (BP) measurements in the office and clinic. Our purpose is to revisit issues as to the pros and cons of automated BP measurement published in Hypertension in June 2020 and to identify areas needing additional research. Despite initial reservations about automated BP, it is here to stay. A number of experts suggest that human error will be reduced when we move from the more complex skills required by aneroid sphygmomanometer measurement to the fewer skills and steps required by automated BP measurement. Our review indicates there is still need for reduction in errors in automated BP assessment, for example, retraining programs and monitoring of assessment procedures. We need more research on the following questions: (1) which classes of health care providers are least likely to measure BP accurately, usually by ignoring necessary steps; (2) how accurate is BP assessment by affiliated health care providers for example the dental office, the optometrist; and (3) why do some dedicated and well-informed health care professionals fail to follow simple directions for automated BP measurement? We offer additional solutions for improving automated BP assessment in the office and clinic.

Unattended compared to traditional blood pressure measurement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised cross-over study

Background Hypertension is characterised by a high prevalence, low awareness and poor control among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Correct blood pressure (BP) measurement is highly important in these subjects. The “unattended” BP measurement aims to reduce the “white-coat effect,” a phenomenon associated with cardiovascular risk. Data on “unattended” BP measurement in RA and its impact on hypertensive organ damage are very limited. Methods BP was measured in the same patient both traditionally (“attended” BP) and by the “unattended” protocol (3 automated office BP measurements, at 1-min intervals, after 5 min of rest, with patient left alone) by a randomised cross-over design. Patients underwent clinical examination, 12-lead electrocardiography and trans-thoracic echocardiography to evaluate cardiac damage. Results Sixty-two RA patients (mean age 67 ± 9 years, 87% women) were enrolled. Hypertension was diagnosed in 79% and 66% of patients according to ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH criteria, respectively. Concordance correlation coefficients between the two techniques were 0.55 (95%, CI 0.38–0.68) for systolic BP and 0.73 (95%, CI 0.60–0.82) for diastolic BP. “Unattended” (121.7/68.6 mmHg) was lower than “attended” BP (130.5/72.8 mmHg) for systolic and diastolic BP (both p < .0001). Among the two techniques, only “unattended” systolic BP showed a significant association with left ventricular mass (r = 0.11; p = .40 for “attended” BP; r = 0.27; p = .036 for unattended BP; difference between slopes: z = 3.92; p = .0001). Conclusions In RA patients, “unattended” BP is lower than traditional (“attended”) BP and more closely associated with LV mass. In these patients, the “unattended” automated BP measurement is a promising tool which requires further evaluation. KEY MESSAGES “Unattended” automated blood pressure registration, aimed to reduce the “white-coat effect” is lower than “attended” value in rheumatoid arthritis patients. “Unattended” blood pressure is more closely associated with left ventricular mass than “attende” registration.

High incidence of masked hypertension in patientswith obstructive sleep apnoea despite normal automatedoffice blood pressure measurement results.

Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a well-known risk factor for masked hypertension (MH) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH). Automated ambulatory office blood pressure measurement (AOBP) might better correlate with the results of ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) compared to routine office blood pressure measurement (OBPM). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic rate of MH/MUCH when using OBPM and AOBP in combination with ABPM. 65 OSA patients, of which 58 were males, (AHI > 5, mean 44.4; range 5-103) of average age 48.8 ± 10.7 years were involved in this study. Following MH/MUCH criteria were used; Criteria I: OBPM < 140/90 mm Hg and daytime ABPM > 135/85 mm Hg; Criteria II: AOBP < 140/90 mm Hg and daytime ABPM > 135/85 mm Hg; Criteria III: AOBP < 135/85 mm Hg and daytime ABPM > 135/85 mm Hg. MH/MUCH criteria I was met in 16 patients (24.6%) with criteria II being met in 37 patients (56.9%), and criteria III in 33 (51.0%), p < 0.0001. Both systolic and diastolic OBPM were significantly higher than AOBP; Systolic (mm Hg): 135.3 ± 12.3 vs 122.1 ± 10.1 (p < 0.0001); Diastolic (mm Hg): 87.4 ± 8.9 vs 77.1 ± 9.3 (p < 0.0001). AOBP was significantly lower than daytime ABPM; Systolic (mm Hg): 122.1 ± 10.1 vs 138.9 ± 10.5 (p < 0.0001); Diastolic (mm Hg): 77.1 ± 9.3 vs 81.6 ± 8.1 (p < 0.0001). Non-dipping phenomenon was present in 38 patients (58.4%). Nocturnal hypertension was present in 55 patients (84.6%). In patients with OSA there is a much higher prevalence of MH/MUCH despite normal AOBP, therefore it is necessary to perform a 24-hour ABPM even if OBPM and AOBP are normal.

Performance of an automated blood pressure measurement device in a stroke rehabilitation unit

Valid blood pressure (BP) measurements are needed in post-stroke rehabilitation hospital units for the management of hypertension. Automated devices could be used to improve on usual care BP measurement. However, more information is needed about the performance of these devices in such a context. This prospective nonrandomized study was performed in stroke patients with hypertension hospitalized in a stroke rehabilitation unit. Two in-hospital BP assessment strategies were compared: usual care BP and in-hospital automated office BP (AOBP) standardized measurements. In-office AOBP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) were also performed on these patients. The main outcome was SBP. Study follow-up was until discharge, up to a maximum of 4 weeks. Sixty-two patients with stroke hospitalized in a rehabilitation unit were included. Usual care BP was 130 ± 12/79 ± 9 mmHg and differed from an in-hospital AOBP of 117 ± 14/75 ± 12 mmHg (P < 0.001/P < 0.001). In-hospital and in-office AOBP measurements did not differ. Twenty percent of patients reached SBP therapeutic goals according to in-hospital AOBP but not according to usual care BP measurements. This study shows that in a post-stroke rehabilitation unit, standardized in-hospital AOBP estimates are on average much lower than the usual care BP correlates and similar to the in-office AOBP estimates. In-hospital AOBP devices in a stroke rehabilitation unit could add important information for the management of hypertension.

Abstract MP35: Automated Office Blood Pressures For Making A Diagnosis Of Hypertension And The Effect Of Attendance And Rest Time

Context: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) where three to five blood pressures (BP) are taken using an oscillometric device without an attendant in the room may decrease white coat effect. Objective: We evaluated the presence/absence of the attendant and varying amounts of rest time on BP; and the diagnostic performance of AOBP in making a new diagnosis of hypertension compared to daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Methods: Participants included 130 adults aged 18-84 with no hypertension diagnosis or treatment and high BP ( &gt; 140/90) prior to the study. Participants completing ABPM testing in the prior 24-hours were randomized either to Attended AOBP first, unattended second or; Unattended AOBP first, attended second . AOBP was subsequently performed twice, once after 5 minutes of rest and again after 15 minutes. Outcomes included within person difference between attended versus unattended BPs , and between 5 and 15 minutes of rest. Sensitivity and specificity of AOBP for making a new diagnosis of HTN was evaluated. Results: AOBP was significantly lower than mean daytime ABPM regardless of rest or attendance (systolic BP between -3.9 mmHg and diastolic BP -2.9 mm Hg lower). There were no significant within-person differences between AOBPs that were attended versus unattended (mean difference systolic 0.1 mmHg, CI -0.8, 1.1; diastolic 0.2 mmHg, CI -0.5, 0.8) or after five versus 15-minutes of rest (mean difference systolic -0.5 mmHg, CI -1.4, 0.5, diastolic 0.2 mmHg, CI -1.2, 0.0). Using daytime mean ABPM threshold of &gt; 135/85, the sensitivity and specificity of AOBP for making a new diagnosis of hypertension was 71.0% and 54.1%. Conclusion: Neither the presence/absence of an attendant nor rest time significantly impacted AOBP measurement. A single set of AOBP measurements may be insufficient for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Use of Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement in the Evaluation of Elevated Blood Pressures in Children and Adolescents

To determine the level of agreement between automated office blood pressures (AOBP), auscultated or manual office BP (manual office blood pressure), and 24-hour ABPM, and to explore the ability of AOBP and manual office blood pressure to correctly identify daytime ambulatory hypertension in children. We retrospectively compared BPs obtained by AOBP and manual office blood pressure to predict daytime hypertension on ABPM. Six BPs were taken by AOBP followed by manual office blood pressure. Office hypertension was defined by BPs ≥95th percentile for sex and height percentiles for those <13years of age and a BP of ≥130/80mm Hg for ages ≥13years. Daytime ambulatory hypertension was diagnosed if mean wake BPs were ≥95th percentile and BP loads were ≥25%. Application of adult ABPM thresholds for daytime hypertension (130/80mm Hg) was assessed in ages ≥13years. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated considering ABPM as the reference. Complete data were available for 187 patient encounters. Overall, the best agreement was found if both AOBP and manual office blood pressure showed hypertension, but owing to low sensitivity up to 49% of children with hypertension would be misclassified. The use of adult thresholds for ABPM did not improve agreement. Neither AOBP nor manual office blood pressure confirm or exclude daytime ambulatory hypertension with confidence. These results suggest an ongoing role for ABPM in evaluation of hypertension in children.

The optimal use of automated office blood pressure measurement in clinical practice.

This evidence-based article endorses the use of automated office blood pressure (AOBP). AOBP is the most favorable office blood pressure (BP) measuring technique as it provides accurate readings with 3-15mmHg lower values than the casual conventional office measurements with auscultatory or semi-automated oscillometric devices and relates closely to awake ABP readings. The AOBP technique seems to be superior to conventional office BP in predicting hypertension-mediated organ damage and appears to be equally reliable to awake ABP in the prediction of cardiovascular (CV) disease. AOBP readings should be obtained either unattended, with the patient alone in the examination room, or attended with the presence of personnel in the room but with no talking to the patient, although this recommendation is not frequently followed in routine clinical practice. To optimize office BP readings, the type of device, the rest period before AOBP measurements (preceding rest), and the time intervals between measurements were evaluated. As AOBP readings have the advantage of removing many confounding factors, the authors propose to perform measurements with a preceding rest in all patients at the initial visit; if AOBP readings remain <130mmHg in subsequent visits, measurements could be accepted, otherwise, if are higher, patients should be evaluated by out-of-office BP measurements.

Aortic blood pressure and arterial stiffness in patients with controlled resistant and non-resistant hypertension.

The purpose of the current study was to determine whether aortic blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness are greater in patients with controlled resistant hypertension (RHTN) than controlled non-resistant hypertension (non-RHTN) despite similar clinic BP level. Participants were recruited from University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Hypertension Clinic. Controlled hypertension was defined as automated office BP measurement with BP<135/85mmHg. A total of 141 participants were evaluated by pulse wave analysis (PWA) and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV). Among them, 75 patients had controlled RHTN with use of 4 or more antihypertensive medications and 56 patients had controlled non-RHTN with use of 3 or less antihypertensive medications. Compared to patients with controlled non-RHTN, those with controlled RHTN were more likely to be African American and had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus and congestive heart failure. The mean number of antihypertensive medications was greater in patients with controlled RHTN (4.4±0.8 vs 2.3±0.7, P<.001). Clinic brachial BP, aortic BP, augmentation pressure (AP), augmentation index normalized for heart rate of 75 beats per minute (AIx@75) and cf-PWV were similar in both groups. In summary, there was no significant difference in central BP or arterial stiffness between patients with controlled RHTN and controlled non-RHTN. These findings suggest that the higher residual cardiovascular risk observed in patients with RHTN after achieving BP control compared to patients with more easily controlled hypertension is not likely attributable to persistent differences in central BP and arterial stiffness.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement in Screening for Hypertension in Kenya.

Despite increasing adoption of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAOBP) measurement for determining clinic blood pressure (BP), its diagnostic performance in screening for hypertension in low-income settings has not been determined. We determined the validity of uAOBP in screening for hypertension, using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring as the reference standard. We studied a random population sample of 982 Kenyan adults; mean age, 42 years; 60% women; 2% with diabetes mellitus; none taking antihypertensive medications. We calculated sensitivity using 3 different screen positivity cutoffs (≥130/80, ≥135/85, and ≥140/90 mm Hg) and other measures of validity/agreement. Mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring systolic BP was similar to mean uAOBP systolic BP (mean difference, 0.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.9), but the 95% limits of agreement were wide (-39 to 40 mm Hg). Overall discriminatory accuracy of uAOBP was the same (area under receiver operating characteristic curves, 0.66-0.68; 95% CI range, 0.64-0.71) irrespective of uAOBP cutoffs used. Sensitivity of uAOBP displayed an inverse association (P<0.001) with the cutoff selected, progressively decreasing from 67% (95% CI, 62-72) when using a cutoff of ≥130/80 mm Hg to 55% (95% CI, 49-60) at ≥135/85 mm Hg to 44% (95% CI, 39-49) at ≥140/90 mm Hg. Diagnostic performance was significantly better (P<0.001) in overweight and obese individuals (body mass index, >25 kg/m2). No differences in results were present in other subanalyses. uAOBP misclassifies significant proportions of individuals undergoing screening for hypertension in Kenya. Additional studies on how to improve screening strategies in this setting are needed.

Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement.

Clinic-based blood pressure (BP) is a closely-tracked metric of health care quality, but is prone to inaccuracy and measurement imprecision. Recent guidelines have advocated for automated office blood pressure (AOBP) devices to improve clinic-based BP assessments. Patients from a single hypertension clinic underwent a 3-day evaluation that included a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), 2 manual clinic-based BP measurements (over 2 visits), and an unattended AOBP measurement (single visit). All measurements were compared to the average wake-time systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) from ABPM. Among 103 patients (mean age 57.3 ± 14.8 years, 51% women, 29% black) the average wake-time SBP was 131.3 ± 12.3 mm Hg and DBP was 78.3 ± 9.2 mm Hg. The average of 2 manual BPs was significantly higher than wake-time ABPM with mean differences of 5.5 mm Hg (P < 0.001) for SBP and 2.7 mm Hg (P = 0.002) for DBP. In contrast, the averages of the last 2 AOBP measurements did not significantly differ from ABPM with mean differences of 1.6 mm Hg (P = 0.21) for SBP and -0.5 mm Hg (P = 0.62) for DBP. The estimated prevalence of SBP ≥ 140 or DBP ≥ 90 mm Hg based on wake-time ABPM was 27.2% vs. 49.5% based on the average of 2 manual measurements (difference 22.3%; P < 0.001) and 31.1% based on the average of the last 2 AOBP measurements (difference 3.9%; P = 0.57). A single visit, unattended AOBP more precisely estimated BP and the prevalence of stage 2 and uncontrolled hypertension than even the average of 2 manual clinic visits, supporting guideline recommendations to use AOBP for clinic-based BP measurements.

Attended Versus Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) has been proposed for blood pressure (BP) assessment in the office because it shows a strong association with the awake ambulatory BP. However, it remains unknown whether the presence or absence of an observer modulates AOBP readings. To determine the difference between unattended and attended AOBP measurements through systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched the PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration Library and we screened the references' list of relevant reports to identify potentially eligible articles. For included studies, quality was assessed by using the Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. The weighted pooled BP difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) between unattended and attended AOBP was estimated under the random effects model. Twelve studies (1762 subjects) were included. The systolic and diastolic BP difference between unattended and attended AOBP measurements was - 3.66 (- 6.58 to - 0.75) and - 1.67 (- 2.78 to - 0.55) mmHg, respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was high (I2 = 97,1% for systolic and I2 = 89% for diastolic BP, P < 0.001) and was partially determined by the sequence of performing unattended and attended BP measurements, the device used for AOBP, the geographic region in which studies were performed and the presence of a resting period before unattended AOBP. Due to the high heterogeneity, we cannot rely on the weighted pooled estimate. However, the available evidence suggests that attended AOBP yielded higher systolic and diastolic BP levels and it seems that the procedural methodology determines partially the statistical heterogeneity across studies.

AUTOMATED BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS

Objective:Automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is currently recommended for the diagnosis of hypertension. However, optimal treatment targets using this method are not established. Discrepancies between AOBPM, auscultatory and research grade measurements of blood pressure were describ

Determination of optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated measurements in subjects with cardiovascular disease-Analysis of a SPRINT trial subpopulation.

Automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is recommended for diagnosing hypertension; however, optimal treatment targets using this method are not established. Discrepancies between automated and office measurements of blood pressure have been described, producing uncertainty regarding the use of AOBPM in clinical practice. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results improved our understanding of target AOBPM systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels; however, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) targets remain unknown. Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal on-treatment DBP range. The analysis was performed on the participants of the SPRINT trial who had hypertension and prior cardiovascular disease. We analyzed the data of 1470 participants (mean age 70.3±9.3years, 24.1% female) selected from the SPRINT trial database of National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. The mean achieved SBP and DBP were 127.9±10.7 and 68.3±9.4mmHg, respectively. Most of the participants (57.4%) had a DBP lower than 70mmHg, while only 11.7% had DPB ≥80mmHg. Clinical composite endpoint was defined as myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes. There were 159 (10.8%) clinical endpoint events. The participants with on-treatment AOBPM DBP range of 68.6-78.6mmHg showed the lowest hazard risk of a clinical composite endpoint. These results correspond to the office DBP range of 70-80mmHg recommended in ESC guidelines. This is the first attempt to determine the range of optimal DBP values using population-based AOBPM in patients with prior cardiovascular disease.

Automated office blood pressure measurements in primary care are misleading in more than one third of treated hypertensives: The VALENTINE-Greece Home Blood Pressure Monitoring study

BackgroundThis study assessed the diagnostic reliability of automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurements in treated hypertensive patients in primary care by evaluating the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) phenomena. MethodsPrimary care physicians, nationwide in Greece, assessed consecutive hypertensive patients on stable treatment using OBP (1 visit, triplicate measurements) and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements (7 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements). All measurements were performed using validated automated devices with bluetooth capacity (Omron M7 Intelli-IT). Uncontrolled OBP was defined as ≥140/90 mmHg, and uncontrolled HBP was defined as ≥135/85 mmHg. ResultsA total of 790 patients recruited by 135 doctors were analyzed (age: 64.5 ± 14.4 years, diabetics: 21.4%, smokers: 20.6%, and average number of antihypertensive drugs: 1.6 ± 0.8). OBP (137.5 ± 9.4/84.3 ± 7.7 mmHg, systolic/diastolic) was higher than HBP (130.6 ± 11.2/79.9 ± 8 mmHg; difference 6.9 ± 11.6/4.4 ± 7.6 mmHg, p < 0.001). WCH phenomenon (high OBP with low HBP) was observed in 22.7% of the patients, MUCH (low OBP with high HBP) in 15.8%, uncontrolled hypertension (high OBP with high HBP) in 29.9%, and controlled hypertension (low OBP with low HBP) in 31.6%. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, WCH was determined by stage-1 systolic hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 8.6, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 5.7, 13.1) and female gender (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1, 2.4), whereas MUCH was determined by high-normal systolic OBP (OR 6.2, 95% CI 3.8, 10.1) and male gender (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1). ConclusionsIn primary care, automated OBP measurements are misleading in approximately 40% of treated hypertensive patients. HBP monitoring is mandatory to avoid overtreatment of subjects with WCH phenomenon and prevent undertreatment and subsequent excess cardiovascular disease in MUCH.