Julia Höller1, Linda Elizabeth Villagomez Fuentes2, Klaus Matthias1, Reinhold Kreutz3. 1. Audorfer Gemeinschaftspraxis, General Medicine in Oberaudorf, Bavaria, Germany. 2. Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, and Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. linda.villagomez@charite.de. 3. Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, and Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) versus attended automated (aAutoOBP) and manual auscultatory office blood pressure (AuscOBP) measurements is a topic of current controversy. AIM: To evaluate the differences between OBP measurements methods in the general practice (GP) setting. METHODS: We first compared aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP in 42 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 1). Secondly, we compared AuscOBP to uAutoOBP measurements in 133 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 2). In addition, we analyzed the achieved OBP targets as recommended in the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines in group 2. RESULTS: The mean age of patients in group 1 was 71 years (range 34-89 years, 54.8% females). The aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP systolic (131.7 and 131.6 mmHg) and diastolic (83.4 and 82.4 mmHg) mean values were not significantly different. The patient characteristics in group 2 were similar to group 1. We observed a significant difference between AuscOBP and uAutoOBP measurement for both systolic (149.4 versus 129.5 mm Hg) and diastolic (85.4 versus 81.6 mm Hg, p < 0.0001, respectively). Accordingly, 20.3% and 45.9% of patients reached the overall 2018 ESC/ESH systolic and diastolic OBP targets of < 140/80 mmHg according to AuscOBP and uAutoOBP (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The attended versus unattended status of automated OBP measurements had no impact on OBP values in GP. However, significantly higher OBP values and lower rates of achieved target OBP were observed by using AuscOBP measurements by physicians in comparison to automated OBP recordings.
INTRODUCTION: The use of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) versus attended automated (aAutoOBP) and manual auscultatory office blood pressure (AuscOBP) measurements is a topic of current controversy. AIM: To evaluate the differences between OBP measurements methods in the general practice (GP) setting. METHODS: We first compared aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP in 42 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 1). Secondly, we compared AuscOBP to uAutoOBP measurements in 133 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 2). In addition, we analyzed the achieved OBP targets as recommended in the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines in group 2. RESULTS: The mean age of patients in group 1 was 71 years (range 34-89 years, 54.8% females). The aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP systolic (131.7 and 131.6 mmHg) and diastolic (83.4 and 82.4 mmHg) mean values were not significantly different. The patient characteristics in group 2 were similar to group 1. We observed a significant difference between AuscOBP and uAutoOBP measurement for both systolic (149.4 versus 129.5 mm Hg) and diastolic (85.4 versus 81.6 mm Hg, p < 0.0001, respectively). Accordingly, 20.3% and 45.9% of patients reached the overall 2018 ESC/ESH systolic and diastolic OBP targets of < 140/80 mmHg according to AuscOBP and uAutoOBP (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The attended versus unattended status of automated OBP measurements had no impact on OBP values in GP. However, significantly higher OBP values and lower rates of achieved target OBP were observed by using AuscOBP measurements by physicians in comparison to automated OBP recordings.
Authors: Wolfgang Weiss; Christopher Gohlisch; Christl Harsch-Gladisch; Markus Tölle; Walter Zidek; Markus van der Giet Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Paul A James; Suzanne Oparil; Barry L Carter; William C Cushman; Cheryl Dennison-Himmelfarb; Joel Handler; Daniel T Lackland; Michael L LeFevre; Thomas D MacKenzie; Olugbenga Ogedegbe; Sidney C Smith; Laura P Svetkey; Sandra J Taler; Raymond R Townsend; Jackson T Wright; Andrew S Narva; Eduardo Ortiz Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frederic Bauer; Felix S Seibert; Benjamin Rohn; Klaus A R Bauer; Eckart Rolshoven; Nina Babel; Timm H Westhoff Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin; Martin Dawes; Alexander Kiss; Sheldon W Tobe; F Curry Grant; Janusz Kaczorowski Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-02-07
Authors: Emmanuel A Andreadis; Charalampia V Geladari; Epameinondas T Angelopoulos; Florentia S Savva; Anna I Georgantoni; Vasilios Papademetriou Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 5.501