Awake Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Research Articles

Cost-accuracy and patient experience assessment of blood pressure monitoring methods to diagnose hypertension: A comparative effectiveness study.

Studies of the diagnosis of hypertension have emphasized long-term cost-effectiveness analysis, but the patient experience and costs of blood pressure monitoring methods at the diagnosis stage remain unclear. We studied four diagnostic methods: a new 1 h-automated office blood pressure (BP) monitoring, office BP measurement, home BP monitoring, and awake-ambulatory BP monitoring. We carried out a comparative effectiveness study of four methods of diagnosing hypertension in 500 participants with a clinical suspicion of hypertension from three primary healthcare (PHC) centers in Barcelona city (Spain). We evaluated the time required and the intrinsic and extrinsic costs of the four methods. The cost-accuracy ratio was calculated and differences between methods were assessed using ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test. Patient experience data were transformed using Rasch analysis and re-scaled from 0 to 10. Office BP measurement was the most expensive method (€156.82, 95% CI: 156.18-157.46) and 1 h-automated BP measurement the cheapest (€85.91, 95% CI: 85.59-86.23). 1 h-automated BP measurement had the best cost-accuracy ratio (€ 1.19) and office BP measurement the worst (€ 2.34). Home BP monitoring (8.01, 95% CI: 7.70-8.22), and 1 h-automated BP measurement (7.99, 95% CI: 7.80-8.18) had the greatest patient approval: 66.94% of participants would recommend 1 h-automated BP measurement as the first or second option. The relationship between the cost-accuracy ratio and the patient experience suggests physicians could use the new 1 h-automated BP measurement as the first option and awake-ambulatory BP monitoring in complicated cases and cease diagnosing hypertension using office BP measurement.

Comparative accuracies of automated and manual office blood pressure measurements in a Chinese population.

We aimed to assess the difference in the accuracy of readings from automated office blood pressure machines with each other or with manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese individuals. We collected awake 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, two automated office blood pressure device (BpTRU and WatchBP) readings, and manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese patients (n = 135) with hypertension in a randomized sequence. Differences were compared using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots. The sensitivity and specificity of the techniques for detecting elevated blood pressure were calculated using awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard. The WatchBP device's and awake ambulatory blood pressure readings were similar. The BpTRU device provided significantly lower mean systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.001) blood pressure readings, while manual office BP provided significantly higher mean systolic (P = 0.008) and diastolic (P < 0.001) blood pressure readings than the awake automated office blood pressure readings. Automated and manual office blood pressure measurements showed similar sensitivity, specificity, and 95% limits of agreement as based on Bland-Altman plots. The mean systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.02) blood pressure readings of WatchBP and BpTRU differed, and their diagnostic performances were not superior than those of manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese patients. Therefore, automated office blood pressure measurements cannot be routinely recommended for Chinese individuals in clinical practice. More studies are needed to confirm these results.

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings After Zero or Five Minutes of Rest.

[Figure: see text].

Comparison of 3 Devices for 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in a Nonclinical Environment Through a Randomized Trial.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends the use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as part of screening and diagnosis of hypertension. The optimal ABPM device for population-based surveys is unknown. We compared the proportion of valid blood pressure (BP) readings, mean awake and asleep BP readings, differences between awake ABPM readings and initial standardized BP readings, and sleep experience among three ABPM devices. We randomized a convenience sample of 365 adults to 1 of 3 ABPM devices: Welch Allyn Mobil-O-Graph (WA), Sun Tech Classic Oscar2 (STO) and Spacelabs 90227 (SL). Participants completed sleep quality questionnaires on the nights before and during ABPM testing. The proportions of valid BP readings were not different among the 3 devices (P > 0.45). Mean awake and asleep systolic BP were significantly higher for STO device (WA vs. STO vs. SL: 126.65, 138.09, 127.44 mm Hg; 114.34, 120.34, 113.13 mm Hg; P < 0.0001 for both). The difference between the initial average standardized mercury systolic BP readings and the ABPM mean awake systolic BP was larger for STO device (WA vs. STO. vs. SL: -5.26, -16.24, -5.36 mm Hg; P < 0.0001); diastolic BP mean differences were ~ -6 mm Hg for all 3 devices (P = 0.6). Approximately 55% of participants reported that the devices interfered with sleep; however, there were no sleep differences across the devices (P > 0.4 for all). Most of the participants met the threshold of 70% valid readings over 24 hours. Sleep disturbance was common but did not interfere with completion of measurement in most of the participants.

AGREEMENT BETWEEN AOBP MEASUREMENTS AND AWAKE ABPM AMONG TREATED HYPERTENSIVES

Objective:To examine the agreement between automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements and awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) among treated hypertensive individuals.Design and method:Treated hypertensives were subjected to ABPM using a validated, digital, oscillometric device

A Modern Method to Monitor Office Blood Pressure

The diagnosis and management of hypertension relies on accurate and precise blood pressure (BP) measurements and monitoring techniques. Variability in traditional office based BP readings can contribute to misclassification and potential misdiagnosis of hypertension, leading to inappropriate treatment and possibly avoidable adverse drug events. Both home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) can improve characterization of BP status over traditional office values and can predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk; however, they are limited by availability and/or practical use in many situations. Available in-office blood pressure measuring methods include manual auscultation, automated oscillometric, and automated office blood pressure (AOBP) devices. A strong correlation exists between AOBP and awake ABPM measurements and has been linked to better prediction of end-organ damage and white coat response compared to standard office BP methods. While AOBP does not provide nocturnal BP readings, it can be utilized in several outpatient settings, and has the capability to decrease utilization of ABPM, white coat effect, and improve optimization of cardiovascular assessment, evaluation, and therapeutic assessment in clinical practice.&#x0D; Hypertension affects over 80 million adults in the United States (US) and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [1]. The condition’s ubiquitous nature and broad impact potentially makes understanding the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension key elements of managing cardiovascular risk. Though much attention is paid to the treatment of hypertension, from 2009 to 2012, 45.9% of US patients with hypertension were uncontrolled [1]. Appreciating the aspects of proper assessment of blood pressure is crucial and creates the foundation for approaching hypertension management. Until recently, hypertension was defined as an appropriately measured office systolic blood pressure (SBP) of greater than or equal to 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than or equal to 90 mmHg, with the patient seated and resting for 5 minutes in a proper position, and preferentially, measured as an average of two readings taken 1 or 2 minutes apart [1-5]. While serving as the primary method, standard office blood pressure assessment with either manual or traditional automated BP cuffs is limited in accuracy and application in everyday practice, and faces many challenges. As such, an understanding of the potential limitations of current BP strategies, and the roles and rationale for novel assessment techniques are of value to clinicians [6].&#x0D; Conflict of Interest: We declare no conflicts of interest or financial interests that the authors or members of their immediate families have in any product or service discussed in the manuscript, including grants (pending or received), employment, gifts, stock holdings or options, honoraria, consultancies, expert testimony, patents and royalties.&#x0D; &#x0D; Type: Review

Prospective blood pressure measurement in renal transplant recipients.

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.

The white coat effect is not associated with additional increase of target organ damage in true resistant hypertension

Background and objectiveWhite coat effect (WCE) (i.e., the difference between office blood pressure [OBP] and awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring [ABPM]) may be present in hypertensive individuals. The relationship between occurrence of WCE and target organ damage (TOD) has not yet been assessed in true resistant hypertension (RHTN). Patients and methodsRHTN patients were divided into two groups: RHTN with WCE (WCE, n=66) and RHTN without WCE (non-WCE, n=61). All patients were submitted to OBP measurement, ABPM, echocardiography and renal function evaluation in three visits. ResultsNo differences were observed between the WCE and non-WCE groups regarding age, body mass index or gender. OBP were 169.8±15.8/95.1±14.0 (WCE) and 161.9±9.0/90.1±10.4mmHg (non-WCE), ABPM=143.0±12.8/86.1±9.9 (WCE) and 146.1±13.6/85.1±14.9mmHg (non-WCE). No statistical differences were observed between WCE and non-WCE subgroups with respect to left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (WCE=131±4.7; non-WCE=125±2.9g/m2), creatinine clearance (WCE=78±4.7; non-WCE=80±3.6ml/min/m2) and microalbuminuria (MA) (WCE=44±8.4; non-WCE=49±6.8mg/g Cr). ConclusionsThis finding may suggest that WCE is not associated with additional increase of TOD in true RHTN subjects.

Agreement Between Community Pharmacy and Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure Measurement Methods to Assess the Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Treatment: The MEPAFAR Study

The usefulness of the community pharmacy blood pressure (CPBP) method in the diagnosis or treatment of hypertension has not been adequately addressed in controlled studies. The authors' aim was to assess the agreement between awake ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), home blood pressure (HBP), and CPBP in treated hypertensive patients. This was a cross-sectional study carried out in 169 patients in which blood pressure (BP) was measured at the pharmacy (4 visits), at home (4 days), and by 24-hour ABP monitoring. Lin correlation-concordance coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate quantitative agreement. The qualitative agreement to establish the degree of BP control was evaluated using κ coefficient. The agreement was acceptable between HBP and CPBP (CCC=0.80 for systolic BP [SBP] and 0.80 for diastolic BP [DBP]; κ=0.62) and moderate between awake ABP and CPBP (CCC=0.74/0.67, respectively; κ=0.56). The Bland-Altman plots also showed lowest mean differences (0.5/0.3 for SBP and DBP, respectively) for the comparison between CPBP and HBP. The CPBP has a better agreement with HBP than with awake ABP. Thus, the CPBP measurement method could be a good alternative to HBP monitoring, whereas it cannot be used as a screening test to assess the degree of BP control by awake ABP.

Is there a need to redo many of the diagnoses of hypertension?

Most hypertensive subjects undergoing treatment were diagnosed solely through measurements made in the consultation office. The objective of this study was to redo the diagnosis of treated patients after new clinical measurements and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Cross-sectional study conducted in an outpatient specialty clinic. Patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension or undergoing anti-hypertensive treatment, without target organ damage or diabetes, were included. After drug withdrawal lasting 2-3 weeks, new blood pressure (BP) measurements were made during two separate visits. ABPM was performed blindly, in relation to clinical measurements. The BP thresholds used for diagnosing hypertension, white-coat hypertension, normotension and masked hypertension were: 140 (systolic) and 90 (diastolic) mmHg for office measurements and 135 (systolic) and 85 (diastolic) mmHg for mean awake ABPM (MAA). Evaluations were done on 101 subjects (70% women); mean age 51 ± 10 years. The clinical BP was 155 ± 18/97 ± 10 mmHg (first visit) and 150 ± 16/94 ± 11 mmHg (second visit); MAA was 137 ± 13/ 86 ± 10 mmHg. Sixty-four patients (63%) were confirmed as hypertensive, 28 (28%) as white-coat hypertensive, nine (9%) as normotensive and none as masked hypertensive. After ABPM, 37% of the presumed hypertensive patients did not fit into this category. This study showed that hypertension was overdiagnosed among hypertensive subjects undergoing treatment. New diagnostic procedures should be performed after drug withdrawal, with the aid of BP monitoring.

Experience with marginal living related kidney donors: Are they becoming routine or are there still any doubts?

Objectives To analyze donor and recipient outcome of grafts from marginal kidney donors (ie, elderly or suffering from some anomaly). Methods We had 81 marginal donors from July 1996 to July 2004; 46 were older than 60 years, and 39 had renal or nonrenal anomaly. The donors and recipients were evaluated for morbidity, graft and recipient survival, and the number of rejection episodes. Results The mean (± standard deviation) age of elderly donors was 62.2 ± 3.1 years. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 50 months (mean 21.15 ± 0.9 months). Actuarial 1-year and 3-year graft survival rates were 95% and 81%, respectively. Twenty-six percent of recipients maintained serum creatinine levels less than 1.4 mg/dL. The mean age of hypertensive donors was 46.2 years, and blood pressure was controlled with one drug. Serum creatinine levels in the recipients were less than 1.4 mg/dL in 10 and less than 2.5 mg/dL in the rest. Eleven percent of hypertensive donors required an increase in their antihypertensive medication. All donors showed a 15% to 20% increase in their glomerular filtration rate. Donors underwent simultaneous surgery when indicated. Conclusions Criteria to reject donors need to be reviewed periodically. The elderly and donors with other anomalies are consistently showing acceptable results. Hypertensive donors require assessment with awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Automated self-initiated blood pressure or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy?

To determine whether self-initiated and recorded automated blood pressure measurement can provide an accurate estimate of ambulatory blood pressure in pregnant women suspected of having 'white coat hypertension'. A prospective observational study. Women's and Children's Health Unit, St George Hospital, a teaching hospital of the University of New South Wales. Pregnant women being assessed for possible 'white-coat hypertension'. Sixty-six pregnant women who were undergoing 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in their home or work environment also measured their blood pressure six times during this interval using a self-initiated automated blood pressure recorder (Omron HEM 705CP). Agreement between awake ABPM and Omron recorded blood pressures was tested by Bland-Altman analysis. Limits of agreement between blood pressures measured by each device. Average blood pressures obtained by the two devices were identical (125/77 mmHg) but limits of agreement were wide, -20 to +23 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and -9 to +15 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure. The Omron HEM 705CP is a useful device for measuring group average blood pressures in pregnant women suspected of having white coat hypertension but cannot reliably replace ABPM for clinical management of individual pregnant women.

The prevalence and clinical significance of nocturnal hypertension in pregnancy.

To determine (a) the prevalence of hypertension during sleep in pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension, and (b) whether women with hypertension during sleep have worse pregnancy outcomes than hypertensive pregnant women with controlled (normal) blood pressure (BP) during sleep. Prospective double-blind cohort study. Inpatients and outpatients managed in a day assessment unit (DAU) at St George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. A total of 186 hypertensive pregnant women, 158 of whom had successful 24 h BP monitoring; 40% had proteinuric pre-eclampsia (PE), 43% gestational hypertension (GH) and 17% essential hypertension (EH). Blood pressure, 24 h non-invasive, monitoring (Spacelabs 90207) was undertaken successfully in 158 women with PE, GH or EH, whether or not they were receiving antihypertensives. Women and clinicians were blinded to results of these BP monitors. Sleep hypertension was defined as BP > 117/68 mmHg at 26-30 weeks or > 123/72 mmHg after 30 weeks gestation. Maternal and fetal outcomes were compared between women with and without sleep hypertension and the prevalence of sleep hypertension was determined. Sleep hypertension was present in 59%, more commonly in PE (79%) than GH/EH (45%), P < 0.0001. Sleep hypertensives also had higher routine sphygmomanometer BPs [137(10)/91(7) mmHg; mean(SD)] than women with normal sleep BP [130(12)/ 87(8) mmHg] P = 0.007, and higher awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) BPs [137(8)/88(7) versus 127(7)/79(6) mmHg], P < 0.0001. Awake, but not sleep, average heart rate was lower in sleep hypertensives [85(11) versus 91 (10) beats per minute, bpm], P = 0.002. Sleep hypertensives had a significantly greater frequency of renal insufficiency, liver dysfunction, thrombocytopenia and episodes of (awake) severe hypertension (P < 0.05), as well as lower birth weight babies [2715 (808) versus 3224(598) g, P < 0.0001]. Hypertension during sleep is a common finding in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, particularly pre-eclampsia. These women also have higher awake BPs and a greater frequency of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. These findings are largely explained by the greater likelihood of pre-eclamptics having sleep hypertension.