BACKGROUND: Although blood pressure measurement is one of the most frequently performed measurements in clinical practice, there are concerns about its reliability. Serial, automated oscillometric blood pressure measurement has the potential to reduce measurement bias and white-coat effect'. AIM: To study agreement of 30-minute office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) with standardised OBPM, and to compare repeatability. DESIGN AND SETTING: Method comparison study in two general practices in The Netherlands. METHOD: Thirty-minute and standardised OBPM was carried out with the same, validated device in 83 adult patients, and the procedure was repeated after 2 weeks. During 30-minute OBPM, blood pressure was measured automatically every 3 minutes, with the patient in a sitting position, alone in a quiet room. Agreement between 30-minute and standardised OBPM was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Repeatability of the blood pressure measurement methods after 2 weeks was expressed as the mean difference in combination with the standard deviation of difference (SDD). RESULTS: Mean 30-minute OBPM readings were 7.6/2.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.1 to 9.1/1.5 to 3.4 mmHg) lower than standardised OBPM readings. The mean difference and SDD between repeated 30-minute OBPMs (mean difference = 3/1 mmHg, 95% CI = 1 to 5/0 to 2 mmHg; SDD 9.5/5.3 mmHg) were lower than those of standardised OBPMs (mean difference = 6/2 mmHg, 95% CI = 4 to 8/1 to 4 mmHg; SDD 10.9/6.3 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Thirty-minute OBPM resulted in lower readings than standardised OBPM and had a better repeatability. These results suggest that 30-minute OBPM better reflects the patient's true blood pressure than standardised OBPM does.
BACKGROUND: Although blood pressure measurement is one of the most frequently performed measurements in clinical practice, there are concerns about its reliability. Serial, automated oscillometric blood pressure measurement has the potential to reduce measurement bias and white-coat effect'. AIM: To study agreement of 30-minute office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) with standardised OBPM, and to compare repeatability. DESIGN AND SETTING: Method comparison study in two general practices in The Netherlands. METHOD: Thirty-minute and standardised OBPM was carried out with the same, validated device in 83 adult patients, and the procedure was repeated after 2 weeks. During 30-minute OBPM, blood pressure was measured automatically every 3 minutes, with the patient in a sitting position, alone in a quiet room. Agreement between 30-minute and standardised OBPM was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Repeatability of the blood pressure measurement methods after 2 weeks was expressed as the mean difference in combination with the standard deviation of difference (SDD). RESULTS: Mean 30-minute OBPM readings were 7.6/2.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.1 to 9.1/1.5 to 3.4 mmHg) lower than standardised OBPM readings. The mean difference and SDD between repeated 30-minute OBPMs (mean difference = 3/1 mmHg, 95% CI = 1 to 5/0 to 2 mmHg; SDD 9.5/5.3 mmHg) were lower than those of standardised OBPMs (mean difference = 6/2 mmHg, 95% CI = 4 to 8/1 to 4 mmHg; SDD 10.9/6.3 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Thirty-minute OBPM resulted in lower readings than standardised OBPM and had a better repeatability. These results suggest that 30-minute OBPM better reflects the patient's true blood pressure than standardised OBPM does.
Authors: George S Stergiou; Nikolaos M Baibas; Alexandra P Gantzarou; Irini I Skeva; Chrysa B Kalkana; Leonidas G Roussias; Theodore D Mountokalakis Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; John E Hall; Lawrence J Appel; Bonita E Falkner; John Graves; Martha N Hill; Daniel W Jones; Theodore Kurtz; Sheldon G Sheps; Edward J Roccella Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin; Martin Dawes; Alexander Kiss; Sheldon W Tobe; F Curry Grant; Janusz Kaczorowski Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-02-07
Authors: Hailey N Miller; Miriam B Berger; Sandy Askew; Elizabeth Trefney; Crystal Tyson; Laura Svetkey; Gary G Bennett; Dori M Steinberg Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2022-04-23 Impact factor: 2.468