Literature DB >> 28992112

Comparison of Optimal Diagnostic Thresholds of Hypertension With Home Blood Pressure Monitoring and 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.

Jin-Sun Park1, Moo-Yong Rhee2, June Namgung3, Sung Yun Lee3, Deok-Kyu Cho4, Tae-Young Choi4, Seok Yeon Kim5, Jang Young Kim6, Sang Min Park7, Jae Hyuk Choi8, Jae Hang Lee9, Hae-Young Kim10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Differences between the recently suggested outcome-driven diagnostic threshold of home blood pressure (HBP) measurements and the currently recommended diagnostic threshold of HBP measurements may cause a disagreement between 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and HBP measurements in the diagnosis of hypertension. We evaluated the agreement of various HBP diagnostic thresholds (135/85, 130/85, and 130/80 mm Hg) to ABP measurements, as a reference method.
METHODS: Patients who were confirmed to have high BP (≥140/90 mm Hg) at the outpatient clinic were referred. HBP measurement was performed for 7 days in triplicates every morning and evening. The 24-hour ABP measurement was performed on the 8th day. Using 24-hour ABP measurement as a reference method, we analyzed HBP diagnostic thresholds at 135/85, 130/85, and 130/80 mm Hg.
RESULTS: Among 319 patients, 256 patients (mean age, 51.8 ± 9.7 years; 119 men) with valid HBP measurements and 24-hour ABP measurements were enrolled. The threshold of 130/80 mm Hg showed the highest diagnostic sensitivity (P = 0.001) with diagnostic agreement by Kappa statistics. Using 130/80 mm Hg as a diagnostic threshold of hypertension, the prevalence of masked hypertension was significantly lower than 130/85 and 135/85 mm Hg (7.8, 15.2, and 18.4%, respectively, P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that lowering the diagnostic thresholds of HBP measurement from 135/85 mm Hg to 130/80 mm Hg may improve diagnostic accuracy for hypertension. © American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2017. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  ambulatory blood pressure measurement; blood pressure; home blood pressure measurement; hypertension

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28992112     DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpx115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hypertens        ISSN: 0895-7061            Impact factor:   2.689


  3 in total

1.  Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Auttakiat Karnjanapiboonwong; Thunyarat Anothaisintawee; Usa Chaikledkaew; Charungthai Dejthevaporn; John Attia; Ammarin Thakkinstian
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 2.298

2.  Algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using out-of-office blood pressure measurements.

Authors:  Je Sang Kim; Moo-Yong Rhee; Chee Hae Kim; Yoo Ri Kim; Ungjeong Do; Ji-Hyun Kim; Young Kwon Kim; Hyun Jung Lee; Jee Yeon Park; June Namgung; Sung Yun Lee; Deok-Kyu Cho; Tae-Young Choi; Seok Yeon Kim
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 3.738

3.  The impact of changing home blood pressure monitoring cutoff from 135/85 to 130/80 mmHg on hypertension phenotypes.

Authors:  Audes D M Feitosa; Marco A Mota-Gomes; Weimar S Barroso; Roberto D Miranda; Eduardo C D Barbosa; Andréa A Brandão; Fernando Nobre; Decio Mion; Celso Amodeo; José L Lima-Filho; Andrei C Sposito; Wilson Nadruz
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 3.738

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.