Literature DB >> 29255074

Attended Versus Unattended Blood Pressure Measurement in a Real Life Setting.

Frederic Bauer1, Felix S Seibert2, Benjamin Rohn2, Klaus A R Bauer2, Eckart Rolshoven2, Nina Babel2, Timm H Westhoff2.   

Abstract

The debate on the generalizability of the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) findings raised considerable interest in the technique of unattended office blood pressure (BP) measurement. It remains elusive, however, whether unattended BP measurement yields lower values than conventional measurements in a real world setting with subjects consulting their personal general practitioner in a familiar office. We performed a cross-sectional study in 158 patients in 4 general practitioners' offices and compared conventional auscultatory office BP to unattended automated office BP in 107 subjects (group 1) and unattended to attended automated office BP in another 51 subjects (group 2). Unattended BP was calculated as the mean of 3 automated measurements performed in a separate room after 5 minutes of rest. Additionally, patients documented home BP for 7 days after the consultation. Mean auscultatory office, unattended office and home BP were 144.6/81.0, 144.1/79.9, and 135.5/78.3 mm Hg in group 1; unattended and attended automated office BP were 134.2/80.6 and 135.7/80.6 mm Hg in group 2. Systolic attended and unattended office BP values were significantly higher than home BP (P<0.001, P<0.01, respectively). Attended and unattended office BP, however, did neither show a significant difference in group 1 nor in group 2 (P>0.05 each). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.5 mm Hg systolic and 1.1 mm Hg diastolic in group 1 and -1.5 mm Hg systolic and 0 mm Hg diastolic in group 2. In conclusion, the present findings show that unattended and attended office BP measurements achieve comparable results, if measurements take place at a familiar general practitioner's office.
© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attention; blood pressure; general practitioners; heart failure; secondary prevention

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29255074     DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hypertension        ISSN: 0194-911X            Impact factor:   10.190


  27 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

2.  The Impact of Measurement Methods on Office Blood Pressure and Management of Hypertension in General Practice.

Authors:  Julia Höller; Linda Elizabeth Villagomez Fuentes; Klaus Matthias; Reinhold Kreutz
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2019-11-09

Review 3.  Blood Pressure Assessment in Adults in Clinical Practice and Clinic-Based Research: JACC Scientific Expert Panel.

Authors:  Paul Muntner; Paula T Einhorn; William C Cushman; Paul K Whelton; Natalie A Bello; Paul E Drawz; Beverly B Green; Daniel W Jones; Stephen P Juraschek; Karen L Margolis; Edgar R Miller; Ann Marie Navar; Yechiam Ostchega; Michael K Rakotz; Bernard Rosner; Joseph E Schwartz; Daichi Shimbo; George S Stergiou; Raymond R Townsend; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright; Lawrence J Appel
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement and Cardiac Target Organ Damage, A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Claudia Palomba; Simone Donadio; Grazia Canciello; Maria Angela Losi; Raffaele Izzo; Maria Virginia Manzi; Federica De Pisapia; Costantino Mancusi; Nicola De Luca
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2019-08-23

Review 5.  Implementing Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement.

Authors:  Daniel W Jones
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 10.190

6.  Accurate Blood Pressure in the Office.

Authors:  Wanpen Vongpatanasin
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  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

8.  Comparison of blood pressure values-self-measured at home, measured at an unattended office, and measured at a conventional attended office.

Authors:  Kei Asayama; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Hiromi Rakugi; Masaaki Miyakawa; Hisao Mori; Tomohiro Katsuya; Yumi Ikehara; Shinichiro Ueda; Yusuke Ohya; Takuya Tsuchihashi; Kazuomi Kario; Katsuyuki Miura; Naoyuki Hasebe; Sadayoshi Ito; Satoshi Umemura
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.872

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

Authors:  Anastasios Kollias; Emelina Stambolliu; Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis; Areti Gravvani; George S Stergiou
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 3.738

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.