Literature DB >> 20849695

Variability of office, 24-hour ambulatory, and self-monitored blood pressure measurements.

Roderick E Warren1, Tom Marshall, Paul L Padfield, Sigrun Chrubasik.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of hypertension is difficult when faced with several different blood pressure measurements in an individual. Using the average of several office measurements is recommended, although considerable uncertainty remains. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory monitoring is often considered the gold standard, but self-monitoring of blood pressure has been proposed as a superior method. AIM: Determination of within-individual variability of blood pressure measured in the office, by ambulatory monitoring, and by a week of self-monitoring. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective analysis of a clinical trial of 163 subjects.
METHOD: Within-patient variability of office and ambulatory blood pressure was determined from measurements at 0 and 6 weeks. Subjects had performed self-monitoring of blood pressure twice each morning and evening, for at least 6 weeks; variability was determined from the means of week 1 and week 6.
RESULTS: The within-individual coefficients of variation (CVs) for systolic blood pressure were: office, 8.6%; ambulatory, 5.5%; self, 4.2%. Equivalent values for diastolic blood pressure were 8.6%, 4.9%, and 3.9%. CVs tended to be lower with longer self-monitoring duration, and higher with longer intervals between self-monitoring.
CONCLUSION: Office blood pressure is impractical for precise assessment, as 10-13 measurements are required to give the accuracy required for rational titration of antihypertensive drugs. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory monitoring is better than a single office measurement, but considerable uncertainty remains around the estimate. A week of self-monitoring appears to be the most accurate method of measuring blood pressure, but remains imperfect. Further research may identify superior self-monitoring schedules. Given the inherent accuracy in blood pressure measurement, the importance of considering overall cardiovascular risk is emphasised.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20849695      PMCID: PMC2930221          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X515403

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  14 in total

1.  Is a series of blood pressure measurements by the general practitioner or the patient a reliable alternative to ambulatory blood pressure measurement? A study in general practice with reference to short-term and long-term between-visit variability.

Authors:  M M Brueren; P van Limpt; H J Schouten; P W de Leeuw; J W van Ree
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 2.689

2.  How should we measure blood pressure in the doctor's office?

Authors:  W Gerin; R M Marion; R Friedman; G D James; D H Bovbjerg; T G Pickering
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.444

3.  JBS 2: Joint British Societies' guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice.

Authors: 
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  Blood pressure variability: the challenge of variation.

Authors:  Tom P Marshall
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.689

5.  Measurement error proportional to the mean.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-07-13

6.  Reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hemodialysis patients.

Authors:  A J Peixoto; S F Santos; R B Mendes; S T Crowley; R Maldonado; M Orias; G A Mansoor; W B White
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 8.860

7.  Hemodynamic patterns of age-related changes in blood pressure. The Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  S S Franklin; W Gustin; N D Wong; M G Larson; M A Weber; W B Kannel; D Levy
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1997-07-01       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results. Medical Research Council Working Party.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1985-07-13

9.  Comparison of different methods of blood pressure measurements.

Authors:  Sigrun Chrubasik; Conrad Droste; Ekkehard Glimm; Andrew Black
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.444

10.  Value of low dose combination treatment with blood pressure lowering drugs: analysis of 354 randomised trials.

Authors:  M R Law; N J Wald; J K Morris; R E Jordan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-06-28
View more
  20 in total

1.  Self-monitored blood pressure measurements.

Authors:  Ray O'Connor
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Self-monitored blood pressure measurements.

Authors:  Roderick E Warren; Tom Marshall; Paul L Padfield; Sigrun Chrubasik
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  Pragmatic Method Using Blood Pressure Diaries to Assess Blood Pressure Control.

Authors:  James E Sharman; Leigh Blizzard; Wojciech Kosmala; Mark R Nelson
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 4.  Home Blood Pressure Monitoring.

Authors:  Jacob George; Thomas MacDonald
Journal:  Eur Cardiol       Date:  2015-12

Review 5.  Catheter-based Renal Artery Denervation for Resistant Hypertension: Promise Unfulfilled or Unsettled?

Authors:  Matthew G Denker; Debbie L Cohen; Raymond R Townsend
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.113

Review 6.  Home monitoring of blood pressure.

Authors:  Barry P McGrath
Journal:  Aust Prescr       Date:  2015-02-02

7.  Uneven Accuracy of Home Blood Pressure Measurement: A Multicentric Survey.

Authors:  Maria Elena Flacco; Lamberto Manzoli; Marco Bucci; Lorenzo Capasso; Dania Comparcini; Valentina Simonetti; Maria Rosaria Gualano; Manuela Nocciolini; Claudio D'Amario; Giancarlo Cicolini
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  24-hour efficacy and safety of Triple-Combination Therapy With Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide: the TRINITY ambulatory blood pressure substudy.

Authors:  Joseph L Izzo; Steven G Chrysant; Dean J Kereiakes; Thomas Littlejohn Iii; Suzanne Oparil; Michael Melino; James Lee; Victor Fernandez; Reinilde Heyrman
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  The effect of chance variability in blood pressure readings on the decision making of general practitioners: an internet-based case vignette study.

Authors:  Mohammed A Mohammed; Tom Marshall; Paramjit Gill
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Challenges and scientific considerations in hypertension management reflected in the 2012 recommendations of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program.

Authors:  Sheldon W Tobe; Luc Poirier; Guy Tremblay; Patrice Lindsay; Debra Reid; Norman Rc Campbell; Nadia Khan; Robert R Quinn; Doreen Rabi
Journal:  Open Med       Date:  2012-10-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.