Literature DB >> 30403006

Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design.

Olive Tang1,2, Stephen P Juraschek3,4, Lawrence J Appel1,2,5, Lisa A Cooper1,2,5, Jeanne Charleston2, Romsai T Boonyasai1, Kathryn A Carson2,5, Hsin-Chieh Yeh1,2,5, Edgar R Miller1,2,5.   

Abstract

Discrepancies between clinic and research blood pressure (BP) measurements lead to uncertainties in translating hypertension management guidelines into practice. We assessed the concordance between standardized automated clinic BP, from a primary care clinic, and research BP, from a randomized trial conducted at the same site. Mean single-visit clinic BP was higher by 4.4/3.8 mm Hg (P = 0.007/<0.001). Concordance in systolic BP (SBP) improved with closer proximity of measurements (difference = 2.5 mm Hg, P = 0.21 for visits within 7 days), but not averaging across multiple visits (difference =5.1(9.2) mm Hg; P < 0.001). This discrepancy was greater among female participants. Clinic-based difference in SBP between two visits was more variable than research-based change (SD = 19.6 vs 14.0; P = 0.002); a 2-arm trial using clinic measurements would need 95% more participants to achieve comparable power. Implementation of a bundled standardization intervention decreased discrepancies between clinic and research BP, compared to prior reports. However, clinic measurements remained higher and more variable, suggesting treatment to research-based targets may lead to overtreatment and using clinic BP approximately halves power in trials. ©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blood pressure measurement; clinical trials; electronic health record; hypertension; standardized blood pressure protocol

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30403006      PMCID: PMC6289771          DOI: 10.1111/jch.13412

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


  24 in total

1.  Blood pressure measurements are unreliable to diagnose hypertension in primary care.

Authors:  Paul Sebo; Antoinette Pechère-Bertschi; François R Herrmann; Dagmar M Haller; Patrick Bovier
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.844

2.  Blood pressure monitoring: theory and practice. European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability Teaching Course Proceedings.

Authors:  George S Stergiou; Paolo Palatini; Roland Asmar; Grzegorz Bilo; Alejandro de la Sierra; Geoff Head; Kazuomi Kario; Anastasia Mihailidou; Jiguang Wang; Giuseppe Mancia; Eoin O'Brien; Gianfranco Parati
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.444

3.  Office Blood Pressure Measurement: The Weak Cornerstone of Hypertension Diagnosis.

Authors:  George Stergiou; Anastasios Kollias; Gianfranco Parati; Eoin O'Brien
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 10.190

4.  Measuring blood pressure for decision making and quality reporting: where and how many measures?

Authors:  Benjamin J Powers; Maren K Olsen; Valerie A Smith; Robert F Woolson; Hayden B Bosworth; Eugene Z Oddone
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  A Dietary Intervention in Urban African Americans: Results of the "Five Plus Nuts and Beans" Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Edgar R Miller; Lisa A Cooper; Kathryn A Carson; Nae-Yuh Wang; Lawrence J Appel; Debra Gayles; Jeanne Charleston; Karen White; Na You; Yingjie Weng; Michelle Martin-Daniels; Barbara Bates-Hopkins; Inez Robb; Whitney K Franz; Emily L Brown; Jennifer P Halbert; Michael C Albert; Arlene T Dalcin; Hsin-Chieh Yeh
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  White coat hypertension is a cardiovascular risk factor: a 10-year follow-up study.

Authors:  P H Gustavsen; A Høegholm; L E Bang; K S Kristensen
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.012

7.  Prevalence of white coat effect in treated hypertensive patients in the community.

Authors:  M G Myers; P I Oh; R A Reeves; C D Joyner
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 2.689

8.  Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design.

Authors:  Olive Tang; Stephen P Juraschek; Lawrence J Appel; Lisa A Cooper; Jeanne Charleston; Romsai T Boonyasai; Kathryn A Carson; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Edgar R Miller
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  A bundled quality improvement program to standardize clinical blood pressure measurement in primary care.

Authors:  Romsai T Boonyasai; Kathryn A Carson; Jill A Marsteller; Katherine B Dietz; Gary J Noronha; Yea-Jen Hsu; Sarah J Flynn; Jeanne M Charleston; Greg P Prokopowicz; Edgar R Miller; Lisa A Cooper
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 3.738

10.  A Short History of Automated Office Blood Pressure - 15 Years to SPRINT.

Authors:  Martin G Myers
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  6 in total

1.  Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement.

Authors:  Stephen P Juraschek; Anthony Ishak; Kenneth J Mukamal; Marc L Cohen; Jennifer L Beach
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 2.689

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Office blood pressure measurement types: Different methodology-Different clinical conclusions.

Authors:  George S Stergiou; Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis; Anastasios Kollias
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 3.738

5.  Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design.

Authors:  Olive Tang; Stephen P Juraschek; Lawrence J Appel; Lisa A Cooper; Jeanne Charleston; Romsai T Boonyasai; Kathryn A Carson; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Edgar R Miller
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 3.738

6.  Potential impact of systematic and random errors in blood pressure measurement on the prevalence of high office blood pressure in the United States.

Authors:  Swati Sakhuja; Byron C Jaeger; Oluwasegun P Akinyelure; Adam P Bress; Daichi Shimbo; Joseph E Schwartz; Shakia T Hardy; George Howard; Paul Drawz; Paul Muntner
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 3.738

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.