BACKGROUND: Automated blood pressure (BP) devices are commonly used in doctor's offices. How BP measured on these devices relates to ambulatory BP monitoring is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To assess how well office-based manual and automated BP predicts ambulatory BP. METHODS: Using data on 654 patients, we assessed how well sphygmomanometer measurements and measurements taken with an automated device (BpTRU) predicted results on ambulatory BP monitoring. We assess positive and negative predictive values and overall accuracy. We look at different cut-points for systolic (130, 135 and 140 mmHg) and diastolic (80, 85 and 90 mmHg) BP. RESULTS: A single automated office BP (AOBP) assessment provides superior predictive values and overall accuracy compared to three manual office BP assessments. For systolic BP, the predictive values are ≤69% for any of the cut-points while the positive predictive values for the single automated measurement is between 80.0% and 86.9% and the overall accuracy gets as high as 74% for the 130 mmHg cut-point. For diastolic BP, the automated readings are also more predictive but in this case, it is the negative predictive values that are better, as well as the overall accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, we suggest that 135/85 mmHg continue to be used as the cut-point defining high BP with the BpTRU device. However, future research might suggests that values in a grey zone between 130-139 mmHg systolic and 80-89 mmHg diastolic be confirmed using ambulatory BP monitoring. As well, three AOBP assessments might produce much greater accuracy than the single AOBP assessment used in the study.
BACKGROUND: Automated blood pressure (BP) devices are commonly used in doctor's offices. How BP measured on these devices relates to ambulatory BP monitoring is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To assess how well office-based manual and automated BP predicts ambulatory BP. METHODS: Using data on 654 patients, we assessed how well sphygmomanometer measurements and measurements taken with an automated device (BpTRU) predicted results on ambulatory BP monitoring. We assess positive and negative predictive values and overall accuracy. We look at different cut-points for systolic (130, 135 and 140 mmHg) and diastolic (80, 85 and 90 mmHg) BP. RESULTS: A single automated office BP (AOBP) assessment provides superior predictive values and overall accuracy compared to three manual office BP assessments. For systolic BP, the predictive values are ≤69% for any of the cut-points while the positive predictive values for the single automated measurement is between 80.0% and 86.9% and the overall accuracy gets as high as 74% for the 130 mmHg cut-point. For diastolic BP, the automated readings are also more predictive but in this case, it is the negative predictive values that are better, as well as the overall accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, we suggest that 135/85 mmHg continue to be used as the cut-point defining high BP with the BpTRU device. However, future research might suggests that values in a grey zone between 130-139 mmHg systolic and 80-89 mmHg diastolic be confirmed using ambulatory BP monitoring. As well, three AOBP assessments might produce much greater accuracy than the single AOBP assessment used in the study.
Authors: Michael K Rakotz; Bernard G Ewigman; Menaka Sarav; Ruth E Ross; Ari Robicsek; Chad W Konchak; Thomas F Gavagan; David W Baker; David J Hyman; Kenneth P Anderson; Christopher M Masi Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Martin R Salazar; Walter G Espeche; Rodolfo N Stavile; Eduardo Balbín; Betty C Leiva Sisnieguez; Carlos E Leiva Sisnieguez; Carlos E March; Susana Cor; Irma Eugenio Acero; Horacio A Carbajal Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 3.012
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: Bryce C Rhodehouse; Jerry Fan; Wencong Chen; Michael J McNeal; Charis G Durham; John P Erwin Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2019-07-22