Paul Drawz1. 1. Division of Renal Diseases & Hypertension, University of Minnesota, 717 Delaware St SE, Suite 353, Minneapolis, MN, 55414, USA. Draw0003@umn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The appropriate treatment targets for individuals with elevated blood pressure (BP) have received increased attention in light of recent clinical trial results. However, it is well known that the method used to measure BP can have a significant impact on the observed BP. In this review, we summarize the existing literature on the impact of BP measurement technique on observed BP readings. RECENT FINDINGS: Manual BPs obtained in-clinic routinely differ from those obtained using automated devices. Further, clinic-based readings (either manual or automated) typically correlate poorly with readings from ambulatory BP monitoring or home-based devices. However, few studies utilize randomization or sound experimental design to explore differences in BP readings by method or technique. While numerous studies report differences in BP by method, most lack statistical rigor and therefore provide limited insight into the true effect of technique on BP measurements.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The appropriate treatment targets for individuals with elevated blood pressure (BP) have received increased attention in light of recent clinical trial results. However, it is well known that the method used to measure BP can have a significant impact on the observed BP. In this review, we summarize the existing literature on the impact of BP measurement technique on observed BP readings. RECENT FINDINGS: Manual BPs obtained in-clinic routinely differ from those obtained using automated devices. Further, clinic-based readings (either manual or automated) typically correlate poorly with readings from ambulatory BP monitoring or home-based devices. However, few studies utilize randomization or sound experimental design to explore differences in BP readings by method or technique. While numerous studies report differences in BP by method, most lack statistical rigor and therefore provide limited insight into the true effect of technique on BP measurements.
Authors: Josep Redon; Giuseppe Mancia; Peter Sleight; Helmut Schumacher; Peggy Gao; Janice Pogue; Robert Fagard; Paolo Verdecchia; Michael Weber; Michael Böhm; Bryan Williams; Khalid Yusoff; Koon Teo; Salim Yusuf Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William C Cushman; Gregory W Evans; Robert P Byington; David C Goff; Richard H Grimm; Jeffrey A Cutler; Denise G Simons-Morton; Jan N Basile; Marshall A Corson; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Lois Katz; Kevin A Peterson; William T Friedewald; John B Buse; J Thomas Bigger; Hertzel C Gerstein; Faramarz Ismail-Beigi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Paul E Drawz; Srinivasan Beddhu; Holly J Kramer; Michael Rakotz; Michael V Rocco; Paul K Whelton Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Nicholas M Pajewski; Dan R Berlowitz; Adam P Bress; Kathryn E Callahan; Alfred K Cheung; Larry J Fine; Sarah A Gaussoin; Karen C Johnson; Jordan King; Dalane W Kitzman; John B Kostis; Alan J Lerner; Cora E Lewis; Suzanne Oparil; Mahboob Rahman; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Joni K Snyder; Carolyn Still; Mark A Supiano; Virginia G Wadley; Paul K Whelton; Jackson T Wright; Jeff D Williamson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Paul E Drawz; Anil Agarwal; Jamie P Dwyer; Edward Horwitz; James Lash; Kristin Lenoir; Andrew McWilliams; Suzanne Oparil; Frederic Rahbari-Oskoui; Mahboob Rahman; Mark A Parkulo; Priscilla Pemu; Dominic S Raj; Michael Rocco; Sandeep Soman; George Thomas; Delphine S Tuot; Paul K Whelton; Nicholas M Pajewski Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873