Literature DB >> 31415001

Ambulatory versus home blood pressure monitoring: frequency and determinants of blood pressure difference and diagnostic disagreement.

Angeliki Ntineri1, Teemu J Niiranen2,3,4, Richard J McManus5, Annika Lindroos2,3, Antti Jula2, Claire Schwartz5, Anastasios Kollias1, Emmanuel A Andreadis6, George S Stergiou1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Out-of-office blood pressure evaluation assessed using ambulatory (ABP) or home (HBP) monitoring is currently recommended for hypertension management. We evaluated the frequency and determinants of diagnostic disagreement between ABP and HBP measurements.
METHODS: Cross-sectional data from 1971 participants (mean age 53.8 ± 11.4 years, 52.6% men, 32% treated) from Greece, Finland and the United Kingdom were analyzed. The diagnostic disagreement between HBP and daytime ABP was regarded as certain when (i) the two methods diagnosed a different blood pressure phenotype, (ii) the absolute HBP-ABP difference was more than 10/5 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) and (iii) ABP and HBP had a more than 5 mmHg difference from the respective hypertension threshold.
RESULTS: In 1574 participants (79.9%), there was agreement between HBP and ABP in diagnosing hypertensive phenotypes (kappa 0.70). Of the remaining 397 participants (20.1%) with diagnostic disagreement, 95 had clinically irrelevant HBP-ABP differences, which reduced the disagreement to 15.3%. When cases with ABP and/or HBP differing ≤5 mmHg from the respective hypertension threshold were excluded, the certain disagreement between the two methods was reduced to 8.2%. Significant determinants of the HBP-ABP difference were age, sex, study center, BMI, cardiovascular disease history, office hypertension and antihypertensive treatment. Antihypertensive drug treatment, alcohol consumption and office normotension independently increased the odds of diagnostic disagreement.
CONCLUSION: These data suggest that there is considerable diagnostic agreement between HBP and ABP, and that these methods are interchangeable for clinical decisions in most patients. However, considerable disagreement between the two methods occurs in an appreciable minority, most likely due to methodological and patient-related factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31415001     DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hypertens        ISSN: 0263-6352            Impact factor:   4.844


  3 in total

1.  Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Auttakiat Karnjanapiboonwong; Thunyarat Anothaisintawee; Usa Chaikledkaew; Charungthai Dejthevaporn; John Attia; Ammarin Thakkinstian
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 2.298

2.  Consistency among Office, Home, and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Values in Women with Chronic Hypertension and History of Eclampsia or Preeclampsia.

Authors:  Ewa Wojciechowska; Piotr Sobieraj; Maciej Siński; Maria Anna Zaborska-Dworak; Piotr Gryglas; Jacek Lewandowski
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using out-of-office blood pressure measurements.

Authors:  Je Sang Kim; Moo-Yong Rhee; Chee Hae Kim; Yoo Ri Kim; Ungjeong Do; Ji-Hyun Kim; Young Kwon Kim; Hyun Jung Lee; Jee Yeon Park; June Namgung; Sung Yun Lee; Deok-Kyu Cho; Tae-Young Choi; Seok Yeon Kim
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 3.738

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.