Literature DB >> 32951360

Attended vs unattended systolic blood pressure measurement: A randomized comparison in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Ellen C Keeley1, Matthew Villanueva2, Yiqing E Chen2, Yan Gong2, Eileen M Handberg1, Steven M Smith2,3, Carl J Pepine1, Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff1,2.   

Abstract

Recent clinical guidelines recommend lower blood pressure (BP) goals for most patients, and recent trends have favored use of automated unattended BP measurements in the office setting to minimize observer error and white-coat effects. Patients attending a routinely scheduled CVD clinic visit were prospectively randomized to BP measured using an attended, followed by an unattended method, or vice versa, after a controlled rest period. All study BP measurements were obtained in triplicate using the automated Omron HEM-907XL BP monitor, and averaged. The outcome was difference in SBP. Routinely measured clinic BP from the same visit was extracted from the medical record, and compared with attended and unattended BP. A total of 102 patients were randomized, and mean age was 63 years, 52% female and 75% Caucasian. Attended and unattended SBP was 125.4 ± 20.4 and 122.6 ± 21.0 mm Hg, mean ± SD, respectively. Routine clinic SBP was 130.6 ± 23.6 mm Hg. Attended SBP was 2.7 mm Hg higher than the unattended measurement (95% CI 1.3-4.1; P = .0002). Routine clinic SBP was 5.2 mm Hg higher than attended SBP (95% CI 2.4-8.0; P = .0003) and 8.0 mm Hg higher than unattended SBP (95% CI 5.4-10.5; P < .0001). Attended measurement of BP is significantly higher than unattended measurement and the difference is physiologically meaningful, even in a CVD cohort with generally well-controlled hypertension. Furthermore, routine clinic SBP substantially overestimates both attended and unattended automated SBP, with important implications for treatment decisions like dose and/or drug escalation.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  blood pressure measurement; cardiovascular disease; hypertension

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32951360      PMCID: PMC8029864          DOI: 10.1111/jch.14037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)        ISSN: 1524-6175            Impact factor:   3.738


  17 in total

1.  Hypertension Canada's 2018 Guidelines for Diagnosis, Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Hypertension in Adults and Children.

Authors:  Kara A Nerenberg; Kelly B Zarnke; Alexander A Leung; Kaberi Dasgupta; Sonia Butalia; Kerry McBrien; Kevin C Harris; Meranda Nakhla; Lyne Cloutier; Mark Gelfer; Maxime Lamarre-Cliche; Alain Milot; Peter Bolli; Guy Tremblay; Donna McLean; Raj S Padwal; Karen C Tran; Steven Grover; Simon W Rabkin; Gordon W Moe; Jonathan G Howlett; Patrice Lindsay; Michael D Hill; Mike Sharma; Thalia Field; Theodore H Wein; Ashkan Shoamanesh; George K Dresser; Pavel Hamet; Robert J Herman; Ellen Burgess; Steven E Gryn; Jean C Grégoire; Richard Lewanczuk; Luc Poirier; Tavis S Campbell; Ross D Feldman; Kim L Lavoie; Ross T Tsuyuki; George Honos; Ally P H Prebtani; Gregory Kline; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Andrew Don-Wauchope; Sheldon W Tobe; Richard E Gilbert; Lawrence A Leiter; Charlotte Jones; Vincent Woo; Robert A Hegele; Peter Selby; Andrew Pipe; Philip A McFarlane; Paul Oh; Milan Gupta; Simon L Bacon; Janusz Kaczorowski; Luc Trudeau; Norman R C Campbell; Swapnil Hiremath; Michael Roerecke; Joanne Arcand; Marcel Ruzicka; G V Ramesh Prasad; Michel Vallée; Cedric Edwards; Praveena Sivapalan; S Brian Penner; Anne Fournier; Geneviève Benoit; Janusz Feber; Janis Dionne; Laura A Magee; Alexander G Logan; Anne-Marie Côté; Evelyne Rey; Tabassum Firoz; Laura M Kuyper; Jonathan Y Gabor; Raymond R Townsend; Doreen M Rabi; Stella S Daskalopoulou
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 5.223

2.  Consistent relationship between automated office blood pressure recorded in different settings.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Miguel Valdivieso; Alexander Kiss
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.444

3.  Muscle and skin sympathetic nerve traffic during physician and nurse blood pressure measurement.

Authors:  Guido Grassi; Gino Seravalle; Silvia Buzzi; Laura Magni; Gianmaria Brambilla; Fosca Quarti-Trevano; Raffaella Dell'Oro; Giuseppe Mancia
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.844

Review 4.  Blood Pressure Assessment in Adults in Clinical Practice and Clinic-Based Research: JACC Scientific Expert Panel.

Authors:  Paul Muntner; Paula T Einhorn; William C Cushman; Paul K Whelton; Natalie A Bello; Paul E Drawz; Beverly B Green; Daniel W Jones; Stephen P Juraschek; Karen L Margolis; Edgar R Miller; Ann Marie Navar; Yechiam Ostchega; Michael K Rakotz; Bernard Rosner; Joseph E Schwartz; Daichi Shimbo; George S Stergiou; Raymond R Townsend; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright; Lawrence J Appel
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Attended versus unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Alejandro de La Sierra; Michael Roerecke; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.844

6.  Automated compared to manual office blood pressure and to home blood pressure in hypertensive patients.

Authors:  Jan Filipovský; Jitka Seidlerová; Zdeněk Kratochvíl; Petra Karnosová; Markéta Hronová; Otto Mayer
Journal:  Blood Press       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 2.835

7.  A novel approach to office blood pressure measurement: 30-minute office blood pressure vs daytime ambulatory blood pressure.

Authors:  Mark C van der Wel; Iris E Buunk; Chris van Weel; Theo A B M Thien; J Carel Bakx
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Conventional versus automated measurement of blood pressure in primary care patients with systolic hypertension: randomised parallel design controlled trial.

Authors:  Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin; Martin Dawes; Alexander Kiss; Sheldon W Tobe; F Curry Grant; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-02-07

9.  Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings With Other Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement for Identifying Patients With Possible Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael Roerecke; Janusz Kaczorowski; Martin G Myers
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 44.409

10.  Blood pressure and incidence of twelve cardiovascular diseases: lifetime risks, healthy life-years lost, and age-specific associations in 1·25 million people.

Authors:  Eleni Rapsomaniki; Adam Timmis; Julie George; Mar Pujades-Rodriguez; Anoop D Shah; Spiros Denaxas; Ian R White; Mark J Caulfield; John E Deanfield; Liam Smeeth; Bryan Williams; Aroon Hingorani; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  2 in total

1.  Attended automated office blood pressure re-visited.

Authors:  Martin G Myers
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 3.738

2.  Attended vs unattended systolic blood pressure measurement: A randomized comparison in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Ellen C Keeley; Matthew Villanueva; Yiqing E Chen; Yan Gong; Eileen M Handberg; Steven M Smith; Carl J Pepine; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-09-20       Impact factor: 3.738

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.