Annina S Vischer1, Thenral Socrates2, Clemens Winterhalder3, Jens Eckstein3, Michael Mayr2, Thilo Burkard2,4. 1. Medical Outpatient Department, ESH Hypertension Center of Excellence, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. annina.vischer@usb.ch. 2. Medical Outpatient Department, ESH Hypertension Center of Excellence, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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