OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of inter-arm blood pressure differences > 10 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) and to determine whether these differences are consistent over time. DESIGN: Descriptive. METHOD: In an evaluation study of 169 DM2 patients from 5 general practices in 2003 and 2004, different methods of oscillatory measurement were used to investigate inter-arm blood pressure differences > 10 mmHg systolic or diastolic. These methods were: one measurement in each arm non-simultaneously (method A), one measurement simultaneously (B) and the mean of two simultaneous measurements (C). RESULTS: With method A an inter-arm blood pressure difference was found in 33% of patients. This percentage diminished to 9 with method C. In 44% (n = 7) of the patients in whom method C detected a relevant blood pressure difference, this difference was not found with method A. In 79% of patients the inter-arm blood pressure difference was not reproduced after one year. CONCLUSION: In daily practice, one non-simultaneous blood pressure measurement in each arm (method A) was of little value for identification of patients with inter-arm blood pressure differences. The reproducibility was poor one year later. Bilateral blood pressure measurement is therefore of little value.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of inter-arm blood pressure differences > 10 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) and to determine whether these differences are consistent over time. DESIGN: Descriptive. METHOD: In an evaluation study of 169 DM2 patients from 5 general practices in 2003 and 2004, different methods of oscillatory measurement were used to investigate inter-arm blood pressure differences > 10 mmHg systolic or diastolic. These methods were: one measurement in each arm non-simultaneously (method A), one measurement simultaneously (B) and the mean of two simultaneous measurements (C). RESULTS: With method A an inter-arm blood pressure difference was found in 33% of patients. This percentage diminished to 9 with method C. In 44% (n = 7) of the patients in whom method C detected a relevant blood pressure difference, this difference was not found with method A. In 79% of patients the inter-arm blood pressure difference was not reproduced after one year. CONCLUSION: In daily practice, one non-simultaneous blood pressure measurement in each arm (method A) was of little value for identification of patients with inter-arm blood pressure differences. The reproducibility was poor one year later. Bilateral blood pressure measurement is therefore of little value.
Authors: Daniel A Duprez; David R Jacobs; Leah I B Andrews; Lyndia C Brumback; Julie O Denenberg; Robyn L Mcclelland; Isac C Thomas; Michael H Criqui; Matthew A Allison Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 2.877
Authors: Marco Canepa; Yuri Milaneschi; Pietro Ameri; Majd AlGhatrif; Giovanna Leoncini; Paolo Spallarossa; Roberto Pontremoli; Claudio Brunelli; James B Strait; Edward G Lakatta; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Christopher E Clark; Colin J Greaves; Philip H Evans; Andy Dickens; John L Campbell Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Niels V van der Hoeven; Sophie Lodestijn; Stephanie Nanninga; Gert A van Montfrans; Bert-Jan H van den Born Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 3.738