Literature DB >> 19609285

Are there really differences between home and daytime ambulatory blood pressure? Comparison using a novel dual-mode ambulatory and home monitor.

G S Stergiou1, D Tzamouranis, E G Nasothimiou, N Karpettas, A Protogerou.   

Abstract

Several studies compared blood pressure (BP) at home (HBP) with ambulatory BP (ABP), but using different devices, which contribute to differences in measured BP. A novel dual-mode device allowing ABP and HBP monitoring (Microlife WatchBPO3) was validated according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol and used to compare the two methods. In the validation study, 33 subjects were assessed with simultaneous BP measurements taken by 2 observers (connected mercury sphygmomanometers) 4 times, sequentially with 3 measurements taken using the tested device. Absolute observer-device BP differences were classified within 5/10/15 mm Hg zones. Measurements with <or=5 mm Hg difference were calculated per participant. In the validation study, the device produced 70/89/96 measurements within 5/10/15 mm Hg, respectively, for systolic BP and 67/95/99 for diastolic BP. Twenty-eight subjects had at least two of their systolic BP differences <or=5 mm Hg and one subject had no difference <or=5 mm Hg, whereas for diastolic BP, it was 22 and 1 subjects, respectively. Mean device-observers BP difference was -0.3+/-5.6/-2.4+/-4.8 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic). In the application study, the difference between daytime ABP and HBP was 0.5+/-7.9 mm Hg for systolic BP (mean+/-standard deviation, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.9, 2.9, P=NS) and 0.6+/-5.5 for diastolic BP (95% CI -1.1, 2.3, P=NS). In conclusion, the Microlife WatchBPO3 device for ABP and HBP monitoring fulfils the International Protocol validation criteria. Using this device, no clinically important difference between daytime ABP and HBP was detected. These data justify the use of the same diagnostic threshold for both methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19609285     DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2009.60

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Hypertens        ISSN: 0950-9240            Impact factor:   3.012


  9 in total

Review 1.  Clinical significance of home blood pressure and its possible practical application.

Authors:  Yutaka Imai
Journal:  Clin Exp Nephrol       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 2.801

Review 2.  The role of home BP monitoring: Answers to 10 common questions.

Authors:  Sonal J Patil; Richelle J Koopman; Jeffery Belden; Michael LeFevre
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2019 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 0.493

3.  Patients' preference for ambulatory versus home blood pressure monitoring.

Authors:  E G Nasothimiou; N Karpettas; M G Dafni; G S Stergiou
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.012

Review 4.  Ambulatory monitoring of central arterial pressure, wave reflections, and arterial stiffness in patients at cardiovascular risk.

Authors:  Stefano Omboni; Ayana Arystan; Bela Benczur
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 3.012

5.  2022 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology and the Taiwan Hypertension Society for the Management of Hypertension.

Authors:  Tzung-Dau Wang; Chern-En Chiang; Ting-Hsing Chao; Hao-Min Cheng; Yen-Wen Wu; Yih-Jer Wu; Yen-Hung Lin; Michael Yu-Chih Chen; Kwo-Chang Ueng; Wei-Ting Chang; Ying-Hsiang Lee; Yu-Chen Wang; Pao-Hsien Chu; Tzu-Fan Chao; Hsien-Li Kao; Charles Jia-Yin Hou; Tsung-Hsien Lin
Journal:  Acta Cardiol Sin       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 1.800

6.  Blood pressure related to age: The India ABPM study.

Authors:  Upendra Kaul; Stefano Omboni; Priyadarshini Arambam; Srinivas Rao; Sunil Kapoor; Jitendra P S Swahney; Kamal Sharma; Tiny Nair; Manoj Chopda; Jagdish Hiremath; Chandrashekhar K Ponde; Abraham Oomman; Budanur C Srinivas; Viraj Suvarna; Sanjiv Jasuja; Eric Borges; Willem J Verberk
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  Blood pressure and heart rate related to sex in untreated subjects: the India ABPM study.

Authors:  Upendra Kaul; Ajit Bhagwat; Stefano Omboni; Arvind K Pancholia; Suhas Hardas; Neil Bardoloi; Deepak Davidson; Peruvamba R Sivakadaksham; Jagdish C Mohan; Peruvamba R Vaidyanathan; Subramaniam Natarajan; Lakshnmi N P Kapardhi; Karumuri S Reddy; Dharmesh Solanki; Jitendra S Makkar; M Viswanathan; Priyadarshini Arambam; Viraj Suvarna; Willem J Verberk
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Validity of self blood pressure measurement in the control of the hypertensive patient: factors involved.

Authors:  Arleen De León-Robert; Juan José Gascón-Cánovas; José Joaquín Antón-Botella; Isabel María Hidalgo-García; Carmen López-Alegría; Yoalys Dilvani Pérez-Cabrera; Heidy Merari Campusano-Castellanos
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.298

9.  Aortic Arch Calcification on routine Chest Radiography is Strongly and Independently Associated with Non-Dipper Blood Pressure Pattern.

Authors:  Rui Póvoa
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.000

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.