OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality and accuracy of morning blood pressure (BP) readings as taken by automated office BP (AOBP) and morning home BP (mHBP) techniques using morning ambulatory BP (mABP) measurements as the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 139 individuals were included, 70 men and 69 women, mean age 53±13 years. The average AOBP readings as measured using a Microlife Watch BP office device taking triplicate automated simultaneous readings of both arms were compared with mHBP monitored on 6 routine days, using a validated automated electronic device. Both modalities were also compared with the ambulatory readings of the 3 h of waking (mABP3h). RESULTS: The AOBP values were slightly higher than the mABP3h (mean difference 8.2 mmHg, 95% limits of agreement, -18.8 to 35.2 mmHg for the systolic BP and mean difference 4.3 mmHg, 95% limits of agreement, -15.3 to 23.9 mmHg for the diastolic BP). Systolic and diastolic AOBP readings correlated with mABP3h (r=0.66, P=0.001 and r=0.64, P=0.001, respectively). Agreement was fair between AOBP and mHBP in the detection of morning hypertensive patients (agreement 70%, κ=0.32) as compared with AOBP and mABP3h (agreement 67%, κ=0.32) and mHBP and mABP3h (agreement 65%, κ=0.31). CONCLUSION: The AOBP technique could replace mHBP monitoring in the assessment of morning BP, as it provides comparable data in relation to the awake ambulatory BP. Given the simplicity of this method, it could be more readily applied in a larger number of individuals.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality and accuracy of morning blood pressure (BP) readings as taken by automated office BP (AOBP) and morning home BP (mHBP) techniques using morning ambulatory BP (mABP) measurements as the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 139 individuals were included, 70 men and 69 women, mean age 53±13 years. The average AOBP readings as measured using a Microlife Watch BP office device taking triplicate automated simultaneous readings of both arms were compared with mHBP monitored on 6 routine days, using a validated automated electronic device. Both modalities were also compared with the ambulatory readings of the 3 h of waking (mABP3h). RESULTS: The AOBP values were slightly higher than the mABP3h (mean difference 8.2 mmHg, 95% limits of agreement, -18.8 to 35.2 mmHg for the systolic BP and mean difference 4.3 mmHg, 95% limits of agreement, -15.3 to 23.9 mmHg for the diastolic BP). Systolic and diastolic AOBP readings correlated with mABP3h (r=0.66, P=0.001 and r=0.64, P=0.001, respectively). Agreement was fair between AOBP and mHBP in the detection of morning hypertensivepatients (agreement 70%, κ=0.32) as compared with AOBP and mABP3h (agreement 67%, κ=0.32) and mHBP and mABP3h (agreement 65%, κ=0.31). CONCLUSION: The AOBP technique could replace mHBP monitoring in the assessment of morning BP, as it provides comparable data in relation to the awake ambulatory BP. Given the simplicity of this method, it could be more readily applied in a larger number of individuals.
Authors: Emmanuel A Andreadis; Charalampia V Geladari; Epameinondas T Angelopoulos; Florentia S Savva; Anna I Georgantoni; Vasilios Papademetriou Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 5.501