AIMS: To establish the validity and clinical value of home blood pressure measurements (HBPM) in the treatment follow-up of patients with essential hypertension to rule out or to confirm poor control of blood pressure obtained in the doctor's office with a mercury sphygmomanometer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study was carried out to validate HBPM in treated hypertensive patients poorly controlled by office-based casual blood pressure measurements. Measurements were made on 2 consecutive days with six readings taken per day. To do this, 2 x 2 tables were drawn up to validate the HBPM using ABPM as the reference method. Sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive probability quotient (+PQ) and negative probability quotient (-PQ) were calculated. The study population (n = 149) was selected by consecutive sampling of the hypertensive patients seen in the Vallada Health Centre. Only 124 patients could be evaluated. RESULTS: Values obtained with HBPM were: S 97.3% (95% CI 90.4-99.7%), Sp 62.7% (48.1-75.9%), +PQ 2.61 (1.82-3.73) and -PQ 0.04 (0.01-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Home monitoring of blood pressure is a useful alternative to ABPM to rule out office-based poor control of hypertensive patients, but not to confirm it.
AIMS: To establish the validity and clinical value of home blood pressure measurements (HBPM) in the treatment follow-up of patients with essential hypertension to rule out or to confirm poor control of blood pressure obtained in the doctor's office with a mercury sphygmomanometer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional study was carried out to validate HBPM in treated hypertensivepatients poorly controlled by office-based casual blood pressure measurements. Measurements were made on 2 consecutive days with six readings taken per day. To do this, 2 x 2 tables were drawn up to validate the HBPM using ABPM as the reference method. Sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive probability quotient (+PQ) and negative probability quotient (-PQ) were calculated. The study population (n = 149) was selected by consecutive sampling of the hypertensivepatients seen in the Vallada Health Centre. Only 124 patients could be evaluated. RESULTS: Values obtained with HBPM were: S 97.3% (95% CI 90.4-99.7%), Sp 62.7% (48.1-75.9%), +PQ 2.61 (1.82-3.73) and -PQ 0.04 (0.01-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Home monitoring of blood pressure is a useful alternative to ABPM to rule out office-based poor control of hypertensivepatients, but not to confirm it.
Authors: Trevor W Glenn; Cyd K Eaton; Kevin J Psoter; Michelle N Eakin; Cozumel S Pruette; Kristin A Riekert; Tammy M Brady Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 3.651
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; Nancy Houston Miller; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Lawrence R Krakoff; Nancy T Artinian; David Goff Journal: Hypertension Date: 2008-05-22 Impact factor: 10.190