Literature DB >> 30328275

Comparison of awake ambulatory blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using linear regression analysis in untreated patients in routine clinical practice.

Martin G Myers1,2, Murray Matangi3, Janusz Kaczorowski4.   

Abstract

The recent American hypertension guidelines recommended a threshold of 130/80 mmHg to define hypertension on the basis of office, home or ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Despite recognizing the potential advantages of automated office (AO)BP, the recommendations only considered conventional office BP, without providing supporting evidence and without taking into account the well documented difference between office BP recorded in research studies versus routine clinical practice, the latter being about 10/7 mmHg higher. Accordingly, we examined the relationship between AOBP and awake ambulatory BP, which the guidelines considered to be a better predictor of future cardiovascular risk than office BP. AOBP readings and 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings were obtained in 514 untreated patients referred for ambulatory BP monitoring in routine clinical practice. The relationship between mean AOBP and mean awake ambulatory BP was examined using linear regression analysis with and without adjustment for age and sex. Special attention was given to the thresholds of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg, the latter value being the recognized threshold for defining hypertension using awake ambulatory BP, home BP and AOBP in other guidelines. The mean adjusted AOBP of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg corresponded to mean awake ambulatory BP values of 132.1/81.5 and 134.4/84.6 mmHg, respectively. These findings support the use of AOBP as the method of choice for determining office BP in routine clinical practice, regardless of which of the two thresholds are used for diagnosing hypertension, with an AOBP of 135/85 mmHg being somewhat closer to the corresponding value for awake ambulatory BP. ©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ambulatory blood pressure; blood pressure measurement; hypertension diagnosis; regression analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30328275      PMCID: PMC8030846          DOI: 10.1111/jch.13409

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


  17 in total

1.  Consistent relationship between automated office blood pressure recorded in different settings.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Miguel Valdivieso; Alexander Kiss
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.444

2.  Ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients with inclusion criteria for the SPRINT trial.

Authors:  Alejandro de la Sierra; José R Banegas; Juan A Divisón; Manuel Gorostidi; Ernest Vinyoles; Juan J de la Cruz; Julián Segura; Luis M Ruilope
Journal:  J Am Soc Hypertens       Date:  2016-11-05

3.  Comparison of blood pressure measurements using an automated blood pressure device in community pharmacies and family physicians' offices: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Larry W Chambers; Janusz Kaczorowski; Susan O'Rielly; Sandra Ignagni; Stephen J C Hearps
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2013-04-09

Review 4.  2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 10.190

5.  The Fallacy of Attended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement.

Authors:  Martin G Myers
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 2.689

6.  2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Authors:  Giuseppe Mancia; Robert Fagard; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Josep Redón; Alberto Zanchetti; Michael Böhm; Thierry Christiaens; Renata Cifkova; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Maurizio Galderisi; Diederick E Grobbee; Tiny Jaarsma; Paulus Kirchhof; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stéphane Laurent; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Roland E Schmieder; Per Anton Sirnes; Peter Sleight; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Faiez Zannad
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.844

7.  Hypertension Canada's 2016 Canadian Hypertension Education Program Guidelines for Blood Pressure Measurement, Diagnosis, Assessment of Risk, Prevention, and Treatment of Hypertension.

Authors:  Alexander A Leung; Kara Nerenberg; Stella S Daskalopoulou; Kerry McBrien; Kelly B Zarnke; Kaberi Dasgupta; Lyne Cloutier; Mark Gelfer; Maxime Lamarre-Cliche; Alain Milot; Peter Bolli; Guy Tremblay; Donna McLean; Sheldon W Tobe; Marcel Ruzicka; Kevin D Burns; Michel Vallée; G V Ramesh Prasad; Marcel Lebel; Ross D Feldman; Peter Selby; Andrew Pipe; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Philip A McFarlane; Paul Oh; Robert A Hegele; Milan Khara; Thomas W Wilson; S Brian Penner; Ellen Burgess; Robert J Herman; Simon L Bacon; Simon W Rabkin; Richard E Gilbert; Tavis S Campbell; Steven Grover; George Honos; Patrice Lindsay; Michael D Hill; Shelagh B Coutts; Gord Gubitz; Norman R C Campbell; Gordon W Moe; Jonathan G Howlett; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Ally Prebtani; Pierre Larochelle; Lawrence A Leiter; Charlotte Jones; Richard I Ogilvie; Vincent Woo; Janusz Kaczorowski; Luc Trudeau; Robert J Petrella; Swapnil Hiremath; Denis Drouin; Kim L Lavoie; Pavel Hamet; George Fodor; Jean C Grégoire; Richard Lewanczuk; George K Dresser; Mukul Sharma; Debra Reid; Scott A Lear; Gregory Moullec; Milan Gupta; Laura A Magee; Alexander G Logan; Kevin C Harris; Janis Dionne; Anne Fournier; Geneviève Benoit; Janusz Feber; Luc Poirier; Raj S Padwal; Doreen M Rabi
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 5.223

8.  Office blood pressure is lower than awake ambulatory blood pressure at lower targets for treatment.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2017-09-24       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  Blood Pressure Measurement in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

Authors:  Karen C Johnson; Paul K Whelton; William C Cushman; Jeffrey A Cutler; Gregory W Evans; Joni K Snyder; Walter T Ambrosius; Srinivasan Beddhu; Alfred K Cheung; Lawrence J Fine; Cora E Lewis; Mahboob Rahman; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 10.190

10.  Comparison of awake ambulatory blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using linear regression analysis in untreated patients in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Murray Matangi; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  8 in total

1.  Clinic, Home, and Kiosk Blood Pressure Measurements for Diagnosing Hypertension: a Randomized Diagnostic Study.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Kelly Ehrlich; Yoshio N Hall; Clarissa Hsu; Dwayne Joseph; Predrag Klasnja; Karen L Margolis; Jennifer B McClure; Sean A Munson; Mathew J Thompson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Determination of optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated measurements in subjects with cardiovascular disease-Analysis of a SPRINT trial subpopulation.

Authors:  Piotr Sobieraj; Jacek Lewandowski; Maciej Siński; Zbigniew Gaciong
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 3.738

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Comparison of awake ambulatory blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using linear regression analysis in untreated patients in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Murray Matangi; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.738

6.  More reasons to use automated office blood pressure in clinical practice.

Authors:  Martin G Myers
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  Automated office blood pressure is in agreement with awake and mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure at the lower blood pressure range.

Authors:  Emmanuel A Andreadis; Charalampia V Geladari; Epameinondas T Angelopoulos
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Utility of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in potential living kidney donors.

Authors:  Nabeel Aslam; Sobia H Memon; Hani Wadei; Elizabeth R Lesser; Shehzad K Niazi
Journal:  Clin Hypertens       Date:  2021-07-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.