Literature DB >> 30272388

Unobserved automated office BP is similar to other clinic BP measurements: A prospective randomized study.

Vasilios Papademetriou1, Costas Tsioufis2, Annice Chung1, Charalampia Geladari3, Emmanuel A Andreadis3.   

Abstract

Results of the SPRINT study have been disputed, based on the assumption that unattended BP measurements do not correlate with usual BP measurements. In this study, the authors investigated the correlation of unattended SPRINT-like measurements with other conventional measurements. All BP measurements were taken with the patient seated in a comfortable chair with the legs uncrossed and not speaking during the procedure. For the purpose of this study, sixty-five patients, mostly male (93%), were recruited from our hypertension clinic and all were on antihypertensive medication (av 3.0 ± 1.1). Patients were at high cardiovascular risk with high rates of comorbidities, av age 68 ± 12 years, 49% with diabetes, 34% with mild CKD (CKD 1-3, average eGFR 55.0 ± 13 mL/min/1.73 m2 ), and 20% with history of stable coronary artery disease. All BP measurements were similar with no statistically significant difference (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.621). Compared to unattended SPRINT BP values (139.77 ± 19.22/75.42 ± 11.72 mm Hg), the clinic BP measurements were numerically slightly higher but with a NS P value (P = 0.163). Similarly, unattended BP measurements were similar to values taken by the clinic physician. In a smaller cohort of 11 patients, the authors compared unobserved vs observed SPRINT-like BP measurements, and in 13 patients, the authors compared unobserved SPRINT-like BP measurements to average home BP measurements (Table 3). There were no significant differences between any of the subgroups (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.816 for systolic and P = 0.803 for diastolic). The authors conclude that unattended BP measurements taken (the SPRINT way) are similar to other conventional office blood pressure measurements. ©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  auscultatory BP; automated office blood pressure; conventional BP; unattended SPRINT BP

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30272388      PMCID: PMC8030999          DOI: 10.1111/jch.13371

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)        ISSN: 1524-6175            Impact factor:   3.738


  25 in total

1.  Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

Authors:  Helmy M Siragy
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.369

Review 2.  Target organ damage in hypertension: pathophysiology and implications for drug therapy.

Authors:  Sunil K Nadar; Muzahir H Tayebjee; Franz Messerli; Gregory Y H Lip
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.116

3.  CASUAL AND BASAL BLOOD PRESSURES IV. THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL PRESSURE WITH A NOTE ON STATISTICAL IMPLICATIONS.

Authors:  F H Smirk
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1944-10

Review 4.  Measurement of blood pressure in the office: recognizing the problem and proposing the solution.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin; Martin Dawes; Alexander Kiss; Sheldon W Tobe; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 10.190

5.  Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Automated compared to manual office blood pressure and to home blood pressure in hypertensive patients.

Authors:  Jan Filipovský; Jitka Seidlerová; Zdeněk Kratochvíl; Petra Karnosová; Markéta Hronová; Otto Mayer
Journal:  Blood Press       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 2.835

7.  Blood pressure control among US veterans: a large multiyear analysis of blood pressure data from the Veterans Administration health data repository.

Authors:  Ross D Fletcher; Richard L Amdur; Robert Kolodner; Chris McManus; Ronald Jones; Charles Faselis; Peter Kokkinos; Steven Singh; Vasilios Papademetriou
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Attended and Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements Have Better Agreement With Ambulatory Monitoring Than Conventional Office Readings.

Authors:  Emmanuel A Andreadis; Charalampia V Geladari; Epameinondas T Angelopoulos; Florentia S Savva; Anna I Georgantoni; Vasilios Papademetriou
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2018-04-07       Impact factor: 5.501

9.  Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1·25 million people.

Authors:  Eleni Rapsomaniki; Adam Timmis; Julie George; Mar Pujades-Rodriguez; Anoop D Shah; Spiros Denaxas; Ian R White; Mark J Caulfield; John E Deanfield; Liam Smeeth; Bryan Williams; Aroon Hingorani; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Time in Therapeutic Range, as a Determinant of All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Hypertension.

Authors:  Michael Doumas; Costas Tsioufis; Ross Fletcher; Richard Amdur; Charles Faselis; Vasilios Papademetriou
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 5.501

View more
  8 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.  Association Between Early Hypertension Control and Cardiovascular Disease Incidence in Veterans With Diabetes.

Authors:  Sridharan Raghavan; Yuk-Lam Ho; Vinay Kini; Mary K Rhee; Jason L Vassy; David R Gagnon; Kelly Cho; Peter W F Wilson; Lawrence S Phillips
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 19.112

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.  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

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

Review 6.  The optimal use of automated office blood pressure measurement in clinical practice.

Authors:  Emmanuel A Andreadis; Charalampia V Geladari; Epameinondas T Angelopoulos
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  The clinical value of automated office blood pressure: What is the latest evidence on attended vs unattended automated readings in clinical practice?

Authors:  Emmanuel A Andreadis; Charalampia V Geladari; Epameinondas T Angelopoulos; Vasilios Papademetriou
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Unobserved automated office BP is similar to other clinic BP measurements: A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Vasilios Papademetriou; Costas Tsioufis; Annice Chung; Charalampia Geladari; Emmanuel A Andreadis
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 3.738

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.