Literature DB >> 30725172

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

Annina S Vischer1, Thenral Socrates2, Clemens Winterhalder3, Jens Eckstein3, Michael Mayr2, Thilo Burkard2,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Recently, ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH guidelines defined different office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) procedures and ranges. We aimed to describe the effect of the different methods to calculate OBPM on BP classification. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Four standardised OBPM were performed in 802 patients within a single visit. BP values were calculated (EUR-/US-BPM) and categorised (EUR-/US-Ranges) according to ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH guidelines. Comparing the BPM procedures, the mean absolute difference of systolic and diastolic BP was 4 (SD ± 5) and 3 (SD ± 3) and a difference ≥ 5 mmHg was found in 35% and 16%, respectively. There was an increase of grade 1/2 arterial hypertension of 87% and 120% comparing BP values categorised according to US-Ranges with EUR-Ranges after applying EUR- or US-BPM to all (p < 0.0001), of 25% and 6% comparing BP values calculated according to US-BPM with EUR-BPM applying EUR- or US-Ranges to all (p = 0.006 and p = 0.17), and of 134% comparing US-Ranges/US-BPM with EUR-Ranges/EUR-BPM (p < 0.0001), respectively. Overall, 16% were reclassified to higher categories when applying US-BPM, and 42-45% of patients classified as "high normal" applying EUR-BPM procedures were reclassified when applying US-BPM procedure, 76-77% of them to "hypertensive" categories.
CONCLUSION: Besides the effect of the redefinition of BP categories by ACC/AHA, the calculation method of US-BPM compared to EUR-BPM leads to a further relevant increase of patients classified as "hypertensive". In addition to the definition of uniform outcome-oriented target BP values, there is an urgent need for a universal definition of an OBPM procedure as prerequisite for proper BP classification and patient management.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blood pressure; Blood pressure determination; Epidemiology; Hypertension; Methodology; Prevalence

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30725172     DOI: 10.1007/s00392-019-01426-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol        ISSN: 1861-0684            Impact factor:   5.460


  24 in total

Review 1.  Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018).

Authors:  Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Bernard R Chaitman; Jeroen J Bax; David A Morrow; Harvey D White
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2018-08-25       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Third universal definition of myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Harvey D White; Allan S Jaffe; Hugo A Katus; Fred S Apple; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Bernard A Chaitman; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michael Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 29.983

3.  Intensive blood-pressure control in hypertensive chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Lawrence J Appel; Jackson T Wright; Tom Greene; Lawrence Y Agodoa; Brad C Astor; George L Bakris; William H Cleveland; Jeanne Charleston; Gabriel Contreras; Marquetta L Faulkner; Francis B Gabbai; Jennifer J Gassman; Lee A Hebert; Kenneth A Jamerson; Joel D Kopple; John W Kusek; James P Lash; Janice P Lea; Julia B Lewis; Michael S Lipkowitz; Shaul G Massry; Edgar R Miller; Keith Norris; Robert A Phillips; Velvie A Pogue; Otelio S Randall; Stephen G Rostand; Miroslaw J Smogorzewski; Robert D Toto; Xuelei Wang
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-02       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Reliability of single office blood pressure measurements.

Authors:  Thilo Burkard; Michael Mayr; Clemens Winterhalder; Licia Leonardi; Jens Eckstein; Annina Salome Vischer
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 5.994

5.  Prevalence of the white-coat effect at multiple visits before and during treatment.

Authors:  Willem J Verberk; Abraham A Kroon; Theo Thien; Jacques W M Lenders; Gert A van Montfrans; Andries J Smit; Peter W de Leeuw
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.844

Review 6.  Association between pre-hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Authors:  Xiaofan Guo; Xiaoyu Zhang; Liang Guo; Zhao Li; Liqiang Zheng; Shasha Yu; Hongmei Yang; Xinghu Zhou; Xingang Zhang; Zhaoqing Sun; Jue Li; Yingxian Sun
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.369

7.  Global Disparities of Hypertension Prevalence and Control: A Systematic Analysis of Population-Based Studies From 90 Countries.

Authors:  Katherine T Mills; Joshua D Bundy; Tanika N Kelly; Jennifer E Reed; Patricia M Kearney; Kristi Reynolds; Jing Chen; Jiang He
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Population impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines compared with the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for hypertension management.

Authors:  Julien Vaucher; Pedro Marques-Vidal; Gérard Waeber; Peter Vollenweider
Journal:  Eur J Prev Cardiol       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 7.804

9.  Now we are sick: labeling and hypertension.

Authors:  Thomas G Pickering
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.738

10.  Spironolactone versus placebo, bisoprolol, and doxazosin to determine the optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension (PATHWAY-2): a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.

Authors:  Bryan Williams; Thomas M MacDonald; Steve Morant; David J Webb; Peter Sever; Gordon McInnes; Ian Ford; J Kennedy Cruickshank; Mark J Caulfield; Jackie Salsbury; Isla Mackenzie; Sandosh Padmanabhan; Morris J Brown
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-09-20       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  3 in total

1.  Long-term effects of baroreflex activation therapy: 2-year follow-up data of the BAT Neo system.

Authors:  Manuel Wallbach; Ellen Born; Deborah Kämpfer; Stephan Lüders; Gerhard A Müller; Rolf Wachter; Michael J Koziolek
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  How should we measure blood pressure? Implications of the fourth blood pressure measurement in office blood pressure.

Authors:  Annina S Vischer; Thenral Socrates; Clemens Winterhalder; Jens Eckstein; Michael Mayr; Thilo Burkard
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 3.738

Review 3.  How Should We Measure and Deal with Office Blood Pressure in 2021?

Authors:  Annina S Vischer; Thilo Burkard
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-03
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.