Joseph E Schwartz1, Paul Muntner2, Ian M Kronish3, Matthew M Burg4, Thomas G Pickering3, John Thomas Bigger3, Daichi Shimbo3. 1. Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA. Electronic address: Joseph.Schwartz@StonyBrookMedicine.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. 3. Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 4. Departments of Internal Medicine and Anesthesiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determining the reliability and predictive validity of office blood pressure (OBP), ambulatory BP (ABP), and home BP (HBP) can inform which is best for diagnosing hypertension and estimating risk of cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the reliability of OBP, HBP, and ABP and evaluate their associations with left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in untreated persons. METHODS: The Improving the Detection of Hypertension (IDH) study, a community-based observational study, enrolled 408 participants who had OBP assessed at 3 visits, and completed 3 weeks of HBP, 2 24-h ABP recordings, and a 2-dimensional echocardiogram. Mean age was 41.2 ± 13.1 years, 59.5% were women, 25.5% African American, and 64.0% Hispanic. RESULTS: The reliability of 1 week of HBP, 3 office visits with mercury sphygmomanometry, and 24-h ABP were 0.938, 0.894, and 0.846 for systolic and 0.918, 0.847, and 0.843 for diastolic BP, respectively. The correlations among OBP, HBP, and ABP, corrected for regression dilution bias, were 0.74 to 0.89. After multivariable adjustment including OBP and 24-h ABP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic HBP were associated with 5.07 (standard error [SE]: 1.48) and 3.92 (SE: 2.14) g/m2 higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for HBP, neither systolic or diastolic OBP nor ABP was associated with LVMI. CONCLUSIONS: OBP, HBP, and ABP assess somewhat distinct parameters. Compared with OBP (3 visits) or 24-h ABP, systolic and diastolic HBP (1 week) were more reliable and more strongly associated with LVMI. These data suggest that 1 week of HBP monitoring may be the best approach for diagnosing hypertension.
BACKGROUND: Determining the reliability and predictive validity of office blood pressure (OBP), ambulatory BP (ABP), and home BP (HBP) can inform which is best for diagnosing hypertension and estimating risk of cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the reliability of OBP, HBP, and ABP and evaluate their associations with left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in untreated persons. METHODS: The Improving the Detection of Hypertension (IDH) study, a community-based observational study, enrolled 408 participants who had OBP assessed at 3 visits, and completed 3 weeks of HBP, 2 24-h ABP recordings, and a 2-dimensional echocardiogram. Mean age was 41.2 ± 13.1 years, 59.5% were women, 25.5% African American, and 64.0% Hispanic. RESULTS: The reliability of 1 week of HBP, 3 office visits with mercury sphygmomanometry, and 24-h ABP were 0.938, 0.894, and 0.846 for systolic and 0.918, 0.847, and 0.843 for diastolic BP, respectively. The correlations among OBP, HBP, and ABP, corrected for regression dilution bias, were 0.74 to 0.89. After multivariable adjustment including OBP and 24-h ABP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic HBP were associated with 5.07 (standard error [SE]: 1.48) and 3.92 (SE: 2.14) g/m2 higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for HBP, neither systolic or diastolic OBP nor ABP was associated with LVMI. CONCLUSIONS: OBP, HBP, and ABP assess somewhat distinct parameters. Compared with OBP (3 visits) or 24-h ABP, systolic and diastolic HBP (1 week) were more reliable and more strongly associated with LVMI. These data suggest that 1 week of HBP monitoring may be the best approach for diagnosing hypertension.
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: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eileen J Carter; Nathalie Moise; Carmela Alcántara; Alexandra M Sullivan; Ian M Kronish Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Daichi Shimbo; Shia T Kent; Keith M Diaz; Lei Huang; Anthony J Viera; Meredith Kilgore; Suzanne Oparil; Paul Muntner Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2014-09-18
Authors: Andrew Coleman; Stephen Steel; Paul Freeman; Annemarie de Greeff; Andrew Shennan Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Jirar Topouchian; Davide Agnoletti; Jacques Blacher; Ahmed Youssef; Mirna N Chahine; Isabel Ibanez; Nathalie Assemani; Roland Asmar Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2014-01-16
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Kelly Ehrlich; Yoshio N Hall; Clarissa Hsu; Dwayne Joseph; Predrag Klasnja; Karen L Margolis; Jennifer B McClure; Sean A Munson; Mathew J Thompson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Alan L Hinderliter; Feng-Chang Lin; Laura A Viera; Emily Olsson; J Larry Klein; Anthony J Viera Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Keeran Vickneson; Amy Rogers; Thineskrishna Anbarasan; David A Rorie; Thomas M MacDonald; Isla S Mackenzie Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Brandon K Bellows; Jingyu Xu; James P Sheppard; Joseph E Schwartz; Daichi Shimbo; Paul Muntner; Richard J McManus; Andrew E Moran; Kelsey B Bryant; Laura P Cohen; Adam P Bress; Jordan B King; James M Shikany; Beverly B Green; Yuichiro Yano; Donald Clark; Yiyi Zhang Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 3.080