Literature DB >> 29713048

Could self-measured office blood pressure be a hypertension screening tool for limited-resources settings?

Martin R Salazar1,2, Walter G Espeche3,4, Rodolfo N Stavile3,4, Eduardo Balbín3, Betty C Leiva Sisnieguez3,4, Carlos E Leiva Sisnieguez3,4, Carlos E March3,4, Susana Cor3, Irma Eugenio Acero3, Horacio A Carbajal4.   

Abstract

Blood pressure (BP) was assessed by patients themselves in recently published trials. Self-measured office blood pressure (SMOBP) seems particularly interesting for limited health resources regions. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relationship between SMOBP values and those estimated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Six hundred seventy-seven patients were evaluated using both, SMOBP and ABPM. The differences between SMOBP and daytime ABPM were evaluated with paired "t" test. The correlations among SMOBP and ABPM were estimated using Pearson's r. The accuracy of SMOBP to identify abnormal ABPM was determined using area under ROC curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for different SMOBP cut-points. Using the average of three readings, systolic SMOBP was higher (3.7 (14.2) mmHg, p < 0.001) and diastolic SMOBP lower (1.5 (8.1) mmHg, p < 0.001) than ABPM. Both BP estimates had a significant correlation, r = 0.67 and r = 0.75 (p < 0.01) for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively. Systolic SMOBP predicted systolic abnormal ABPM; the AUC were 0.80 (0.77-0.84) and 0.78 (0.74-0.81) for daytime and 24 h hypertension, respectively. Diastolic SMOBP predicted diastolic hypertension, AUC 0.86 (0.83-0.88) for both daytime and 24 h hypertension. Neither correlations nor AUCs improved significantly using the average of five readings. SMOBP ≥ 160/90 mmHg was highly specific (>95%) to identify individuals with hypertension in the ABPM; SMOBP < 130/80 mmHg reasonably discarded abnormal ABPM. In conclusion, a high proportion of individuals could be classified adequately using SMOBP, reducing the necessity of healthcare resources and supporting its utility for screening purposes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29713048     DOI: 10.1038/s41371-018-0057-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Hypertens        ISSN: 0950-9240            Impact factor:   3.012


  16 in total

Review 1.  Automated office blood pressure.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 5.223

2.  Can sphygmomanometers designed for self-measurement of blood pressure in the home be used in office practice?

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Miguel Valdivieso; Mary Chessman; Alexander Kiss
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.444

3.  Blood pressure and the global burden of disease 2000. Part II: estimates of attributable burden.

Authors:  Carlene M M Lawes; Stephen Vander Hoorn; Malcolm R Law; Paul Elliott; Stephen MacMahon; Anthony Rodgers
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.844

4.  The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

Authors:  Walter T Ambrosius; Kaycee M Sink; Capri G Foy; Dan R Berlowitz; Alfred K Cheung; William C Cushman; Lawrence J Fine; David C Goff; Karen C Johnson; Anthony A Killeen; Cora E Lewis; Suzanne Oparil; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Joni K Snyder; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright; Paul K Whelton
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-06-05       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 5.  Unattended Blood Pressure Measurements in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: Implications for Entry and Achieved Blood Pressure Values Compared With Other Trials.

Authors:  Sverre E Kjeldsen; Per Lund-Johansen; Peter M Nilsson; Giuseppe Mancia
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 10.190

6.  Effect of Intensive Versus Standard Clinic-Based Hypertension Management on Ambulatory Blood Pressure: Results From the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Ambulatory Blood Pressure Study.

Authors:  Paul E Drawz; Nicholas M Pajewski; Jeffrey T Bates; Natalie A Bello; William C Cushman; Jamie P Dwyer; Lawrence J Fine; David C Goff; William E Haley; Marie Krousel-Wood; Andrew McWilliams; Dena E Rifkin; Yelena Slinin; Addison Taylor; Raymond Townsend; Barry Wall; Jackson T Wright; Mahboob Rahman
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 10.190

Review 7.  Trends in prevalence of hypertension in Argentina in the last 25 years: a systematic review of observational studies.

Authors:  Alejandro Díaz; Daniel Ferrante
Journal:  Rev Panam Salud Publica       Date:  2015-12

8.  Predictors for the white coat effect in general practice patients with suspected and treated hypertension.

Authors:  Morten Lindbaek; Endre Sandvik; Kåre Liodden; Johnny Mjell; Kai Ravnsborg-Gjertsen
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Conventional versus automated measurement of blood pressure in primary care patients with systolic hypertension: randomised parallel design controlled trial.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin; Martin Dawes; Alexander Kiss; Sheldon W Tobe; F Curry Grant; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-02-07

10.  The BpTRU automatic blood pressure monitor compared to 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the assessment of blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

Authors:  Linda Beckett; Marshall Godwin
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2005-06-28       Impact factor: 2.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.