OBJECTIVE: To study the experiences and complaints of patients who underwent 24 h blood pressure monitoring. METHODS: Two groups of hypertensive patients of a tertiary outpatient clinic were asked to fill in a nine-item questionnaire about the side effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). The first group (n=75) used the auscultatory Oxford Medilog device (OM) and the second group (n=110) the oscillometric Spacelabs 90207 (SL). RESULTS: The OM showed significantly less error readings (OM versus SL, 9 versus 19%; P=0.005) but was also less tolerated by the subjects. Sleep disturbance was noted in 53% of the OM patients group in comparison with 18% in the SL group (P<0.0001). Adjustment of daily activities occurred more often in the OM group (OM versus SL, 37 versus 19%; P=0.013) as did complaints of pain in the cuffed arm (OM versus SL, 31 versus 11 %; P=0.007). There was no difference in the proportion of patients that refused a second ABPM (OM versus SL, 11 versus 10%). Linear regression analyses showed that differences in side effects between the two devices were not due to differences in blood pressure, heart rate, age or sex. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that side effects of ABPM are not negligible and that there are differences between devices.
OBJECTIVE: To study the experiences and complaints of patients who underwent 24 h blood pressure monitoring. METHODS: Two groups of hypertensivepatients of a tertiary outpatient clinic were asked to fill in a nine-item questionnaire about the side effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). The first group (n=75) used the auscultatory Oxford Medilog device (OM) and the second group (n=110) the oscillometric Spacelabs 90207 (SL). RESULTS: The OM showed significantly less error readings (OM versus SL, 9 versus 19%; P=0.005) but was also less tolerated by the subjects. Sleep disturbance was noted in 53% of the OM patients group in comparison with 18% in the SL group (P<0.0001). Adjustment of daily activities occurred more often in the OM group (OM versus SL, 37 versus 19%; P=0.013) as did complaints of pain in the cuffed arm (OM versus SL, 31 versus 11 %; P=0.007). There was no difference in the proportion of patients that refused a second ABPM (OM versus SL, 11 versus 10%). Linear regression analyses showed that differences in side effects between the two devices were not due to differences in blood pressure, heart rate, age or sex. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that side effects of ABPM are not negligible and that there are differences between devices.
Authors: Gilad Hamdani; Joseph T Flynn; Stephen Daniels; Bonita Falkner; Coral Hanevold; Julie Ingelfinger; Marc B Lande; Lisa J Martin; Kevin E Meyers; Mark Mitsnefes; Bernard Rosner; Joshua Samuels; Elaine M Urbina Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Byron C Jaeger; Oluwasegun P Akinyelure; Swati Sakhuja; Joshua D Bundy; Cora E Lewis; Yuichiro Yano; George Howard; Daichi Shimbo; Paul Muntner; Joseph E Schwartz Journal: Hypertens Res Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 5.528
Authors: Sondre Heimark; Ole Marius H Rindal; Trine M Seeberg; Alexey Stepanov; Elin S Boysen; Kasper G Bøtker-Rasmussen; Nina K Mobæk; Camilla L Søraas; Aud E Stenehjem; Fadl Elmula M Fadl Elmula; Bård Waldum-Grevbo Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 1.444