Panagiota Veloudi1, Christopher L Blizzard1, Velandai K Srikanth1,2, Martin G Schultz1, James E Sharman3. 1. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Liverpool Street, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia. 2. Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Liverpool Street, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia. james.sharman@utas.edu.au.
Abstract
Blood pressure (BP) is variable in children and this could affect BP assessment, but the magnitude of within-visit BP variability (BPV) over consecutive measurements has never been investigated. This study aimed to determine the direction and magnitude of, and factors affecting, within-visit BPV in children and adolescents. BP was recorded among 3047 children (aged 12 years [95%CI 12, 13], males 52%) from the 2011-2013 Australian Health Survey. BPV was defined as the absolute difference (∆SBPABS) between the first (SBP1) and second systolic BP (SBP2) and the overall variability in three measures when available (SBPV). On average, ∆SBPABS was 6.7 mmHg (95%CI 6.3, 7.0) and SBPV was 8.2% (95%CI 7.8, 8.6). ∆SBPABS was greater with higher BP levels but lower with older age. From first to second measurements, SBP decreased in 58% (95%CI 56, 60), did not change in 10% (95%CI 9, 12), and increased in 32% (95%CI 29, 34) of the population. CONCLUSIONS: BP is highly variable in children and adolescents, with the magnitude of variability being associated with both age and BP level. SBP increases on repeat measurement in a substantial proportion of the population. The optimal protocol of BP assessment to address this increased BPV needs to be determined. What is Known: • Diagnosis of elevated blood pressure (BP) is based on strict probabilistic criteria, the difference between the 90th (pre-hypertension) and 95th (hypertension) percentiles only being 3-4 mmHg. • BP variability could affect BP classification among children and adolescents. What is New: • The magnitude of BP change among children and adolescents is highly affected by BP level and age. • BP does not always drop on consecutive measurements, and evidence-based BP assessment protocols should be established to avoid misdiagnosis of hypertension.
Blood pressure (BP) is variable in children and this could affect BP assessment, but the magnitude of within-visit BP variability (BPV) over consecutive measurements has never been investigated. This study aimed to determine the direction and magnitude of, and factors affecting, within-visit BPV in children and adolescents. BP was recorded among 3047 children (aged 12 years [95%CI 12, 13], males 52%) from the 2011-2013 Australian Health Survey. BPV was defined as the absolute difference (∆SBPABS) between the first (SBP1) and second systolic BP (SBP2) and the overall variability in three measures when available (SBPV). On average, ∆SBPABS was 6.7 mmHg (95%CI 6.3, 7.0) and SBPV was 8.2% (95%CI 7.8, 8.6). ∆SBPABS was greater with higher BP levels but lower with older age. From first to second measurements, SBP decreased in 58% (95%CI 56, 60), did not change in 10% (95%CI 9, 12), and increased in 32% (95%CI 29, 34) of the population. CONCLUSIONS: BP is highly variable in children and adolescents, with the magnitude of variability being associated with both age and BP level. SBP increases on repeat measurement in a substantial proportion of the population. The optimal protocol of BP assessment to address this increased BPV needs to be determined. What is Known: • Diagnosis of elevated blood pressure (BP) is based on strict probabilistic criteria, the difference between the 90th (pre-hypertension) and 95th (hypertension) percentiles only being 3-4 mmHg. • BP variability could affect BP classification among children and adolescents. What is New: • The magnitude of BP change among children and adolescents is highly affected by BP level and age. • BP does not always drop on consecutive measurements, and evidence-based BP assessment protocols should be established to avoid misdiagnosis of hypertension.
Authors: Heikki Aatola; Nina Hutri-Kähönen; Markus Juonala; Jorma S A Viikari; Janne Hulkkonen; Tomi Laitinen; Leena Taittonen; Terho Lehtimäki; Olli T Raitakari; Mika Kähönen Journal: Hypertension Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Augusto César Ferreira de Moraes; Heráclito Barbosa Carvalho; Alfonso Siani; Gianvincenzo Barba; Toomas Veidebaum; Michael Tornaritis; Denes Molnar; Wolfgang Ahrens; Norman Wirsik; Stefaan De Henauw; Staffan Mårild; Lauren Lissner; Kenn Konstabel; Yannis Pitsiladis; Luis A Moreno Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Karen L McNiece; Timothy S Poffenbarger; Jennifer L Turner; Kathy D Franco; Jonathan M Sorof; Ronald J Portman Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Nicholas G Larkins; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Siah Kim; David P Burgner; Jonathan C Craig Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 3.714