Literature DB >> 29173603

Comparison of Different Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement Devices: Evidence of Nonequivalence and Clinical Implications.

Félix Rinfret1, Lyne Cloutier2, Robert Wistaff3, Leora M Birnbaum3, Nathalie Ng Cheong3, Mikhael Laskine4, Ghislaine Roederer3, Paul Van Nguyen3, Michel Bertrand3, Remi Rabasa-Lhoret5, Robert Dufour3, Maxime Lamarre-Cliche6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measuring devices are increasingly recommended as preferred blood pressure (BP) diagnostic tools, but it is unclear how they compare and how clinical environments impact their performance.
METHODS: This prospective randomized factorial parallel 4-group study compared BP estimates by BpTRU (VSM MedTech, Vancouver, BC, Canada) and Omron HEM 907 (Omron Healthcare, Kyoto, Japan) devices in closed vs open areas. Patients diagnosed with hypertension were recruited during office visits. After baseline open-room AOBP measurement with the BpTRU, patients had a second BP measurement with either the BpTRU or HEM 907 in either open or closed areas. Absolute BP levels and differences between the first and second measurements were compared. Diagnostic performance was also assessed.
RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients were studied. Their mean age was 66.2 ± 12.0 years, and 62% were men. The mean of first AOBP estimates was 127.4/73.3 mm Hg. Analyses of subsequent measurements revealed no influence of open or closed areas on BP means and diagnostic performance. Conversely, the Omron HEM 907 exceeded BpTRU systolic BP measurements by 4.6 mm Hg (< 0.01) in closed areas and by 3.9 mm Hg (< 0.01) in open areas. The discrepancy between devices was amplified at lower BP levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Although different areas did not influence BP estimates, the Omron HEM 907 significantly exceeded BpTRU measurements on average and especially at lower BP levels. These differences should be considered when interchanging devices and could have clinical decision impacts in a population of patients treated for hypertension. Our results support the constant use of only 1 device type in a given clinic.
Copyright © 2017 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29173603     DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Cardiol        ISSN: 0828-282X            Impact factor:   5.223


  5 in total

Review 1.  Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care.

Authors:  Romsai T Boonyasai; Erika L McCannon; Joseph E Landavaso
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 2.  Blood Pressure Goals in Patients with CKD: A Review of Evidence and Guidelines.

Authors:  Alex R Chang; Meghan Lóser; Rakesh Malhotra; Lawrence J Appel
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods.

Authors:  Anastasios Kollias; Emelina Stambolliu; Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis; Areti Gravvani; George S Stergiou
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-12-25       Impact factor: 3.738

4.  Determination of optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated measurements in subjects with cardiovascular disease-Analysis of a SPRINT trial subpopulation.

Authors:  Piotr Sobieraj; Jacek Lewandowski; Maciej Siński; Zbigniew Gaciong
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  A meta-analysis that helps clarify the use of automated office blood pressure in clinical practice.

Authors:  Martin G Myers
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 3.738

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.