Literature DB >> 32701144

Comparison of 3 Devices for 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in a Nonclinical Environment Through a Randomized Trial.

Tatiana Nwankwo1, Sallyann M Coleman King2, Yechiam Ostchega1, Guangyu Zhang3, Fleetwood Loustalot2, Cathleen Gillespie2, Tiffany E Chang2, Elin B Begley2, Mary G George2, Daichi Shimbo4, Joseph E Schwartz5, Paul Muntner6, Ian M Kronish4, Yuling Hong2, Robert Merritt2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends the use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as part of screening and diagnosis of hypertension. The optimal ABPM device for population-based surveys is unknown.
METHODS: We compared the proportion of valid blood pressure (BP) readings, mean awake and asleep BP readings, differences between awake ABPM readings and initial standardized BP readings, and sleep experience among three ABPM devices. We randomized a convenience sample of 365 adults to 1 of 3 ABPM devices: Welch Allyn Mobil-O-Graph (WA), Sun Tech Classic Oscar2 (STO) and Spacelabs 90227 (SL). Participants completed sleep quality questionnaires on the nights before and during ABPM testing.
RESULTS: The proportions of valid BP readings were not different among the 3 devices (P > 0.45). Mean awake and asleep systolic BP were significantly higher for STO device (WA vs. STO vs. SL: 126.65, 138.09, 127.44 mm Hg; 114.34, 120.34, 113.13 mm Hg; P < 0.0001 for both). The difference between the initial average standardized mercury systolic BP readings and the ABPM mean awake systolic BP was larger for STO device (WA vs. STO. vs. SL: -5.26, -16.24, -5.36 mm Hg; P < 0.0001); diastolic BP mean differences were ~ -6 mm Hg for all 3 devices (P = 0.6). Approximately 55% of participants reported that the devices interfered with sleep; however, there were no sleep differences across the devices (P > 0.4 for all).
CONCLUSION: Most of the participants met the threshold of 70% valid readings over 24 hours. Sleep disturbance was common but did not interfere with completion of measurement in most of the participants. © Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension Ltd 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  24-hour ABPM; BP; NHANES; National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; blood pressure; blood pressure measurement; hypertension

Year:  2020        PMID: 32701144      PMCID: PMC7641984          DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpaa117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hypertens        ISSN: 0895-7061            Impact factor:   2.689


  16 in total

1.  Measurement of sleep in critically ill patients.

Authors:  K C Richards; P S O'Sullivan; R L Phillips
Journal:  J Nurs Meas       Date:  2000 Fall-Winter

2.  Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Albert L Siu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure measurement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study.

Authors:  Eamon Dolan; Alice Stanton; Lut Thijs; Kareem Hinedi; Neil Atkins; Sean McClory; Elly Den Hond; Patricia McCormack; Jan A Staessen; Eoin O'Brien
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2005-06-06       Impact factor: 10.190

4.  Consistency of blood pressure differences between the left and right arms.

Authors:  Kazuo Eguchi; Mona Yacoub; Juhee Jhalani; William Gerin; Joseph E Schwartz; Thomas G Pickering
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-02-26

Review 5.  Oscillometric blood pressure: a review for clinicians.

Authors:  Bruce S Alpert; David Quinn; David Gallick
Journal:  J Am Soc Hypertens       Date:  2014-09-02

6.  Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

Authors:  Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 10.190

7.  A comparison study of brachial blood pressure recorded with Spacelabs 90217A and Mobil-O-Graph NG devices under static and ambulatory conditions.

Authors:  P A Sarafidis; A A Lazaridis; K P Imprialos; P I Georgianos; K A Avranas; A D Protogerou; M N Doumas; V G Athyros; A I Karagiannis
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 3.012

8.  Factors associated with probability of patient rejecting a repeat 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, despite recommendation by the physician.

Authors:  Lindsey Elliot; Pervaiz Iqbal
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.444

9.  First Thomas Pickering memorial lecture*: ambulatory blood pressure measurement is essential for the management of hypertension.

Authors:  Eoin O'Brien
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 3.738

10.  Tolerability of the Oscar 2 ambulatory blood pressure monitor among research participants: a cross-sectional repeated measures study.

Authors:  Anthony J Viera; Kara Lingley; Alan L Hinderliter
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.