Literature DB >> 29530989

Reliability of single office blood pressure measurements.

Thilo Burkard1,2, Michael Mayr1, Clemens Winterhalder3, Licia Leonardi3, Jens Eckstein3, Annina Salome Vischer1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Standard operating procedures for office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) vary greatly between guidelines and studies. We aimed to compare the difference between a single OBPM and the mean of the three following measurements. Further, we studied how many patients with possible hypertension may be missed due to short-term masked hypertension (STMH) and how many might be overdiagnosed due to short-term white coat hypertension (STWCH). DESIGN AND
SETTING: In this cross-sectional, single-centre trial, 1000 adult subjects were enrolled. After 5 min of rest, four sequential standard OBPMs were performed at 2 min intervals in a quiet room in sitting position. We compared the first (fBPM) to the mean of the second to fourth measurement (mBPM). STMH was defined as fBPM <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic and mBPM systolic ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg. STWCH was defined as fBPM systolic ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg and mBPM <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic.
RESULTS: Complete measurements were available in 802 subjects. Between fBPM and mBPM, 662 (82.5%), 441 (55%) and 208 (25.9%) subjects showed a difference in systolic and 531 (66.2%), 247 (30.8%) and 51 (6.4%) in diastolic blood pressure (BP) values of >2 mm Hg, >5 mm Hg and >10 mm Hg, respectively. In 3.4% of initially normotensives STMH and in 34.3% of initially hypertensives, STWCH was apparent.
CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between a single OBPM and the mean of consecutive BP measurements. Our study provides evidence that a single OBPM should not be the preferred method and should be discouraged in future guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02552030;Results. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiac risk factors and prevention; hypertension

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29530989     DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312523

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  21 in total

1.  Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

2. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 3.  Prevalence of high blood pressure under 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Peisheng Xiong; Zhixi Liu; Meijuan Xiong; Feng Xie
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2020-12-08       Impact factor: 3.012

4.  Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Cases of Clinical Uncertainty to Differentiate Appropriate Inaction From Therapeutic Inertia.

Authors:  Sonal J Patil; Nuha K Wareg; Kelvin L Hodges; Jamie B Smith; Mark S Kaiser; Michael L LeFevre
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 5.166

5.  Impact of single-visit American versus European office blood pressure measurement procedure on individual blood pressure classification: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Annina S Vischer; Thenral Socrates; Clemens Winterhalder; Jens Eckstein; Michael Mayr; Thilo Burkard
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 6.  Replacing salt with low-sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) for cardiovascular health in adults, children and pregnant women.

Authors:  Amanda Brand; Marianne E Visser; Anel Schoonees; Celeste E Naude
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-08-10

7.  Variability independent of mean blood pressure as a real-world measure of cardiovascular risk.

Authors:  Joseph E Ebinger; Matthew Driver; David Ouyang; Patrick Botting; Hongwei Ji; Mohamad A Rashid; Ciantel A Blyler; Natalie A Bello; Florian Rader; Teemu J Niiranen; Christine M Albert; Susan Cheng
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2022-05-13

8.  [Drivers and scorecards to improve hypertension control in primary care practice: Recommendations from the HEARTS in the Americas Innovation GroupFactores impulsores y métodos de puntuación para mejorar el control de la hipertensión en la práctica clínica de la atención primaria: recomendaciones del grupo de innovación de HEARTS en las Américas].

Authors:  Jeffrey W Brettler; Gloria P Giraldo Arcila; Teresa Aumala; Allana Best; Norm Rc Campbell; Shana Cyr; Angelo Gamarra; Marc G Jaffe; Mirna Jimenez De la Rosa; Javier Maldonado; Carolina Neira Ojeda; Modesta Haughton; Taraleen Malcolm; Vivian Perez; Gonzalo Rodriguez; Andres Rosende; Yamile Valdes Gonzalez; Peter W Wood; Eric Zuniga; Pedro Ordunez
Journal:  Rev Panam Salud Publica       Date:  2022-05-10

9.  Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement: Time efficiency and barriers to implementation/utilization.

Authors:  John Doane; Michael Flynn; Marcus Archibald; Dominick Ramirez; Molly B Conroy; Barry Stults
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 3.738

10.  Blood pressure measurement protocol determines hypertension phenotypes in a Middle Eastern population.

Authors:  Hazem M Warda; Amany K Elshorbagy; Amira Habib; Ahmed Wagdi; Anastasia S Mihailidou; Mamdouh Warda
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.738

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.