OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure (BP) variability are often treated as a single entity. Our aim was to assess the agreement between these three methods for measuring BP variability. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, 28 home BP measurements, and eight office BP measurements were performed on 461 population-based or hypertensive participants. Five variability indices were calculated for all measurement methods: SD, coefficient of variation, maximum-minimum difference, variability independent of the mean, and average real variability. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated for indices measured with different methods. The agreement between different measurement methods on the diagnoses of extreme BP variability (participants in the highest decile of variability) was assessed with kappa (κ) coefficients. RESULTS: SBP/DBP variability was greater in daytime (coefficient of variation: 9.8 ± 2.9/11.9 ± 3.6) and night-time ambulatory measurements (coefficient of variation: 8.6 ± 3.4/12.1 ± 4.5) than in home (coefficient of variation: 4.4 ± 1.8/4.7 ± 1.9) and office (coefficient of variation: 4.6 ± 2.4/5.2 ± 2.6) measurements (P < 0.001/0.001 for all). Pearson's correlation coefficients for systolic/diastolic daytime or night-time ambulatory-home, ambulatory-office, and home-office variability indices ranged between 0.07-0.25/0.12-0.23, 0.13-0.26/0.03-0.22 and 0.13-0.24/0.10-0.19, respectively, indicating, at most, a weak positive (r < 0.3) relationship. The agreement between measurement methods on diagnoses of extreme SBP/DBP variability was only slight (κ < 0.2), with the κ coefficients for daytime and night-time ambulatory-home, ambulatory-office, and home-office agreement varying between-0.014-0.20/0.061-0.15, 0.037-0.18/0.082-0.15, and 0.082-0.13/0.045-0.15, respectively. CONCLUSION: Shorter-term and longer-term BP variability assessed by different methods of BP measurement seem to correlate only weakly with each other. Our study suggests that BP variability measured by different methods and timeframes may reflect different phenomena, not a single entity.
OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure (BP) variability are often treated as a single entity. Our aim was to assess the agreement between these three methods for measuring BP variability. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, 28 home BP measurements, and eight office BP measurements were performed on 461 population-based or hypertensiveparticipants. Five variability indices were calculated for all measurement methods: SD, coefficient of variation, maximum-minimum difference, variability independent of the mean, and average real variability. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated for indices measured with different methods. The agreement between different measurement methods on the diagnoses of extreme BP variability (participants in the highest decile of variability) was assessed with kappa (κ) coefficients. RESULTS:SBP/DBP variability was greater in daytime (coefficient of variation: 9.8 ± 2.9/11.9 ± 3.6) and night-time ambulatory measurements (coefficient of variation: 8.6 ± 3.4/12.1 ± 4.5) than in home (coefficient of variation: 4.4 ± 1.8/4.7 ± 1.9) and office (coefficient of variation: 4.6 ± 2.4/5.2 ± 2.6) measurements (P < 0.001/0.001 for all). Pearson's correlation coefficients for systolic/diastolic daytime or night-time ambulatory-home, ambulatory-office, and home-office variability indices ranged between 0.07-0.25/0.12-0.23, 0.13-0.26/0.03-0.22 and 0.13-0.24/0.10-0.19, respectively, indicating, at most, a weak positive (r < 0.3) relationship. The agreement between measurement methods on diagnoses of extreme SBP/DBP variability was only slight (κ < 0.2), with the κ coefficients for daytime and night-time ambulatory-home, ambulatory-office, and home-office agreement varying between-0.014-0.20/0.061-0.15, 0.037-0.18/0.082-0.15, and 0.082-0.13/0.045-0.15, respectively. CONCLUSION: Shorter-term and longer-term BP variability assessed by different methods of BP measurement seem to correlate only weakly with each other. Our study suggests that BP variability measured by different methods and timeframes may reflect different phenomena, not a single entity.
Authors: Victoria A Shaffer; Pete Wegier; K D Valentine; Sean Duan; Shannon M Canfield; Jeffery L Belden; Linsey M Steege; Mihail Popescu; Richelle J Koopman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Ben Christopher Reynolds; Jennifer Lynn Roem; Derek Kai Sing Ng; Mina Matsuda-Abedini; Joseph Thomas Flynn; Susan Lynn Furth; Bradley Alan Warady; Rulan Savita Parekh Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-02-05
Authors: Victoria Anne Shaffer; Pete Wegier; K D Valentine; Jeffery L Belden; Shannon M Canfield; Sonal J Patil; Mihail Popescu; Linsey M Steege; Akshay Jain; Richelle J Koopman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Rianne A A de Heus; Stacha F I Reumers; Alba van der Have; Maxime Tumelaire; Phillip J Tully; Jurgen A H R Claassen Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Otávio A Bertoletti; Rodrigo Ferrari; Elton L Ferlin; Ozi M Barcellos; Sandra C Fuchs Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 4.755