Literature DB >> 32863384

Differences between home blood pressure and strictly measured office blood pressure and their determinants in Japanese men.

Sayaka Kadowaki1, Takashi Kadowaki2, Atsushi Hozawa3, Akira Fujiyoshi4, Takashi Hisamatsu5, Atsushi Satoh6, Hisatomi Arima6, Sachiko Tanaka7, Sayuki Torii2, Keiko Kondo8, Aya Kadota2, Kamal Masaki9, Tomonori Okamura10, Takayoshi Ohkubo11, Katsuyuki Miura2,8, Hirotsugu Ueshima2,8.   

Abstract

Conventional office blood pressure (OBP) and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements are often inconsistent. The purpose of this research was (1) to test whether strictly measured OBP values with sufficient rest time before measurement (st-OBP) is comparable to HBP at the population level and (2) to ascertain whether there are particular determinants for the difference between HBP and st-OBP at the individual level. Data from a population-based group of 1056 men aged 40-79 years were analyzed. After a five-min rest, st-OBP was measured twice. HBP was measured after a 2-min rest every morning for seven consecutive days. To determine factors related to ΔSBP (HBP minus st-OBP measurements), multiple linear regression analyses and analyses of covariance were performed. While st-OBP and HBP were comparable (136.5 vs. 137.2 mmHg) at the population level, ΔSBP varied with a standard deviation of 13.5 mmHg. Smoking was associated with a larger ΔSBP regardless of antihypertensive usage, and BMI was associated with a larger ΔSBP in participants using antihypertensive drugs. The adjusted mean ΔSBP in the highest BMI tertile category was 4.6 mmHg in participants taking antihypertensive drugs. st-OBP and HBP measurements were comparable at the population level, although the distribution of ΔSBP was considerably broad. Smokers and obese men taking antihypertensive drugs had higher HBP than st-OBP, indicating that their blood pressure levels are at risk of being underestimated. Therefore, this group would benefit from the addition of HBP measurements.

Entities:  

Keywords:  General population; Home blood pressure; Office blood pressure

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32863384     DOI: 10.1038/s41440-020-00533-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hypertens Res        ISSN: 0916-9636            Impact factor:   3.872


  2 in total

Review 1.  Cigarette smoking and the adrenergic nervous system.

Authors:  G Grassi; G Seravalle; D A Calhoun; G Bolla; G Mancia
Journal:  Clin Exp Hypertens A       Date:  1992

Review 2.  2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Paul K Whelton; Robert M Carey; Wilbert S Aronow; Donald E Casey; Karen J Collins; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Sondra M DePalma; Samuel Gidding; Kenneth A Jamerson; Daniel W Jones; Eric J MacLaughlin; Paul Muntner; Bruce Ovbiagele; Sidney C Smith; Crystal C Spencer; Randall S Stafford; Sandra J Taler; Randal J Thomas; Kim A Williams; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 9.897

  2 in total
  2 in total

Review 1.  Annual reports on hypertension research 2020.

Authors:  Masaki Mogi; Yukihito Higashi; Kanako Bokuda; Atsuhiro Ichihara; Daisuke Nagata; Atsushi Tanaka; Koichi Node; Yoichi Nozato; Koichi Yamamoto; Ken Sugimoto; Hirotaka Shibata; Satoshi Hoshide; Hitoshi Nishizawa; Kazuomi Kario
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2021-10-15       Impact factor: 3.872

2.  Differences of blood pressure measured at clinic versus at home in the morning and in the evening in Europe and Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Huanhuan Miao; Shijie Yang; Yuqing Zhang
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 2.885

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.