Norm R C Campbell1, Bruce W Culleton, Donald W McKay. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. n.campbel@ucalgary.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standardized measurement of blood pressure (BP) is widely recommended but rarely followed in usual clinical practice. METHODS: We compared the classification of hypertension status of 107 patients referred by family physicians for ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and with elevated clinic BP when assessed by usual clinical office measurement, a trained hypertension research nurse using a standardized measurement protocol, or an ambulatory BP monitor. RESULTS: Usual clinic readings resulted in higher BP readings than those obtained by the research nurse: mean (95% confidence interval [CI]), 10.8 (8.0 to 13.6)/4.9 (2.9 to 6.9) mm Hg, the daytime ambulatory BP 7.7 (5.1 to 10.3)/5.1 (3.0 to 7.1), and the 24-h ambulatory BP 12.1 (9.6 to 14.6)/8.9 (6.9 to 10.9). The interpretation of whether the patient had a hypertensive versus normotensive reading in the usual clinic setting differed in 42% of patients relative to standardized nurse readings. CONCLUSIONS: Following standardized technique is important for correct classification of the BP status of patients. Use of usual or casual technique results in higher readings than standardized or ambulatory BP readings. This study indicates that significant improvement in the assessment of BP is required for diagnosis and optimal management of hypertension. Consideration strongly needs to be given to the development of alternative methods of assessing BP in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Standardized measurement of blood pressure (BP) is widely recommended but rarely followed in usual clinical practice. METHODS: We compared the classification of hypertension status of 107 patients referred by family physicians for ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and with elevated clinic BP when assessed by usual clinical office measurement, a trained hypertension research nurse using a standardized measurement protocol, or an ambulatory BP monitor. RESULTS: Usual clinic readings resulted in higher BP readings than those obtained by the research nurse: mean (95% confidence interval [CI]), 10.8 (8.0 to 13.6)/4.9 (2.9 to 6.9) mm Hg, the daytime ambulatory BP 7.7 (5.1 to 10.3)/5.1 (3.0 to 7.1), and the 24-h ambulatory BP 12.1 (9.6 to 14.6)/8.9 (6.9 to 10.9). The interpretation of whether the patient had a hypertensive versus normotensive reading in the usual clinic setting differed in 42% of patients relative to standardized nurse readings. CONCLUSIONS: Following standardized technique is important for correct classification of the BP status of patients. Use of usual or casual technique results in higher readings than standardized or ambulatory BP readings. This study indicates that significant improvement in the assessment of BP is required for diagnosis and optimal management of hypertension. Consideration strongly needs to be given to the development of alternative methods of assessing BP in clinical practice.
Authors: Nynke D Scherpbier-de Haan; Gerald M M Vervoort; Chris van Weel; Jozé C C Braspenning; Jan Mulder; Jack F M Wetzels; Wim J C de Grauw Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Nynke Scherpbier-de Haan; Mark van der Wel; Gijs Schoenmakers; Steve Boudewijns; Petronella Peer; Chris van Weel; Theo Thien; Carel Bakx Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Kimberly C Blom; Sasha Farina; Yessica-Haydee Gomez; Norm R C Campbell; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Lyne Cloutier; Donald W McKay; Martin Dawes; Sheldon W Tobe; Peter Bolli; Mark Gelfer; Donna McLean; Gillian Bartlett; Lawrence Joseph; Robin Featherstone; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Stella S Daskalopoulou Journal: Curr Hypertens Rep Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.369
Authors: Ian M Kronish; Donald Edmondson; Daichi Shimbo; Jonathan A Shaffer; Lawrence R Krakoff; Joseph E Schwartz Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Eugenia V Veiga; Ana C Q G Daniel; Luiz A Bortolloto; Carlos A Machado; Frida L Plavinik; Maria CláudiaIrigoyen; Norm Campbell; John Kenerson; Lyne Cloutier Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 3.738