OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic performance of home blood pressure self-monitoring in white-coat hypertension using a 3-day reading program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and ninety nontreated patients recently diagnosed with mild-moderate hypertension, selected consecutively at four primary healthcare centers in the city of Barcelona, were included. Each patient underwent morning and night home blood pressure self-monitoring with readings in triplicate for three consecutive days, followed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The normality cut-off point value for home blood pressure self-monitoring and daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was 135/85 mmHg. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were diagnosed with white-coat hypertension with home blood pressure self-monitoring (34.8%; 95% confidence interval: 27.9-42.2) and 74 with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (41.6%; 95% confidence interval: 33.7-48.4). No statistically significant differences were observed between home blood pressure self-monitoring values and those of diurnal ambulatory blood pressure monitoring [137.4 (14.3)/82.1 (8.3) mmHg vs. 134.8 (11.3)/81.3 (9.5) mmHg]. Home blood pressure self-monitoring diagnostic performance parameters were sensitivity 50.0% (95% confidence interval: 38.3-61.7), specificity 75.7% (95% confidence interval: 66.3-83.2), positive and negative predictive values 58.7% (95% confidence interval: 45.6-70.8) and 68.6% (95% confidence interval: 59.4-76.7), respectively, and positive and negative probability coefficients 2.05 and 0.66, respectively. Analysis of different normality cut-off points using a receiver operating characteristic curve failed to produce significant improvement in the diagnostic performance of home blood pressure self-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of a 3-day home blood pressure self-monitoring reading program in white-coat hypertension was poor. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring continues to be the test of choice for this indication.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic performance of home blood pressure self-monitoring in white-coat hypertension using a 3-day reading program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and ninety nontreated patients recently diagnosed with mild-moderate hypertension, selected consecutively at four primary healthcare centers in the city of Barcelona, were included. Each patient underwent morning and night home blood pressure self-monitoring with readings in triplicate for three consecutive days, followed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The normality cut-off point value for home blood pressure self-monitoring and daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was 135/85 mmHg. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were diagnosed with white-coat hypertension with home blood pressure self-monitoring (34.8%; 95% confidence interval: 27.9-42.2) and 74 with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (41.6%; 95% confidence interval: 33.7-48.4). No statistically significant differences were observed between home blood pressure self-monitoring values and those of diurnal ambulatory blood pressure monitoring [137.4 (14.3)/82.1 (8.3) mmHg vs. 134.8 (11.3)/81.3 (9.5) mmHg]. Home blood pressure self-monitoring diagnostic performance parameters were sensitivity 50.0% (95% confidence interval: 38.3-61.7), specificity 75.7% (95% confidence interval: 66.3-83.2), positive and negative predictive values 58.7% (95% confidence interval: 45.6-70.8) and 68.6% (95% confidence interval: 59.4-76.7), respectively, and positive and negative probability coefficients 2.05 and 0.66, respectively. Analysis of different normality cut-off points using a receiver operating characteristic curve failed to produce significant improvement in the diagnostic performance of home blood pressure self-monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of a 3-day home blood pressure self-monitoring reading program in white-coat hypertension was poor. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring continues to be the test of choice for this indication.
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