Per Omvik1, Gerhard Gerhardsen. 1. Institute of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. Per.Omvik@med.uib.no
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in comparison with home and office blood pressure in every-day general practice. METHODS: In a multicenter survey sixty-two practitioners previously unfamiliar with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring performed a total of 1162 (mean 18 +/- 16; range 3-94) 24-h ambulatory- and home blood pressure measurements in normotensive subjects or patients with untreated or treated hypertension. RESULTS: In subjects with office blood pressure <140/90 mmHg average 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (Tenso 24 monitors) was 126/79 mmHg, home blood pressure (Tenso Plus semiautomatic sphygmomanometers) was 128/ 84 mmHg, and office blood pressure (standard sphygmomanometer) was 130/82 mmHg. Patients with office blood pressure > or = 140/90 mmHg had 24-h ambulatory blood pressure averaging 141/88 mmHg, home blood pressure 149/93 mmHg, and office blood pressure 157/95 mmHg. The difference between office-, home-, and ambulatory blood pressure increased with age. Expected differences were found between the three blood pressure modalities according to indication of examination (borderline -, "white-coat" -, and therapy refractory hypertension). Indices of hypertension related end-organ damage were positively correlated with home and ambulatory blood pressure but not with office blood pressure. Overall the performance of home- and ambulatory blood pressure in this general practice setting was similar to that seen by specialized blood pressure units. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the practical utility of home- and ambulatory blood pressure measurement in every-day general practice. Both methods are easy to introduce and the quality of blood pressure data obtained in every-day general practice are comparable to those obtained in hypertension clinics and trial centers.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in comparison with home and office blood pressure in every-day general practice. METHODS: In a multicenter survey sixty-two practitioners previously unfamiliar with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring performed a total of 1162 (mean 18 +/- 16; range 3-94) 24-h ambulatory- and home blood pressure measurements in normotensive subjects or patients with untreated or treated hypertension. RESULTS: In subjects with office blood pressure <140/90 mmHg average 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (Tenso 24 monitors) was 126/79 mmHg, home blood pressure (Tenso Plus semiautomatic sphygmomanometers) was 128/ 84 mmHg, and office blood pressure (standard sphygmomanometer) was 130/82 mmHg. Patients with office blood pressure > or = 140/90 mmHg had 24-h ambulatory blood pressure averaging 141/88 mmHg, home blood pressure 149/93 mmHg, and office blood pressure 157/95 mmHg. The difference between office-, home-, and ambulatory blood pressure increased with age. Expected differences were found between the three blood pressure modalities according to indication of examination (borderline -, "white-coat" -, and therapy refractory hypertension). Indices of hypertension related end-organ damage were positively correlated with home and ambulatory blood pressure but not with office blood pressure. Overall the performance of home- and ambulatory blood pressure in this general practice setting was similar to that seen by specialized blood pressure units. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the practical utility of home- and ambulatory blood pressure measurement in every-day general practice. Both methods are easy to introduce and the quality of blood pressure data obtained in every-day general practice are comparable to those obtained in hypertension clinics and trial centers.
Authors: Frederic F Rahbari-Oskoui; Dana C Miskulin; Marie C Hogan; Odicie Fielder; Vicente E Torres; James E Bost; Arlene Beth Chapman Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Davide L Vetrano; Maria S Pisciotta; Vincenzo Brandi; Maria R Lo Monaco; Alice Laudisio; Graziano Onder; Domenico Fusco; Paolo D L'Angiocola; Anna R Bentivoglio; Roberto Bernabei; Giuseppe Zuccalà Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Jiwon Ryu; Ran-hui Cha; Dong Ki Kim; Ju Hyun Lee; Sun Ae Yoon; Dong Ryeol Ryu; Jieun Oh; Sejoong Kim; Sang-Youb Han; Eun Young Lee; Yon Su Kim Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 2.884
Authors: Angela M G Pierin; Edna C Ignez; Wilson Jacob Filho; Alfonso Júlio Guedes Barbato; Décio Mion Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 2.365