Thomas Mengden1, Burkhard Weisser. 1. Excellence Center of the European Society of Hypertension, Kerckhoff-Klinik, Bad Nauheim,GermanyInstitute of Sports Science, Department of Sports Medicine, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment of arterial hypertension can be monitored by office blood pressure (office BP), home blood pressure (home BP), or 24 hours ambulatory blood pressure (ABPM). In this review, we present current recommendations from Germany and from international guidelines as well as the findings of the main studies on the use of these methods to guide treatment. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed up to and including March 2020. Special attention was paid to guidelines and position papers. RESULTS: The guidelines offer heterogeneous recommendations for treatment monitoring. Home BP is the most reproducible method, with test-retest correlation coefficients of 0.91/0.86 (systolic/diastolic), in comparison to office BP (0.77/0.76). Two meta-analyses revealed better blood pressure control with home measurement than with usual care (systolic, -3.2 to -8.9 mmHg). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials also suggests that home measurement promotes adherence. In the randomized and controlled TASMINH4 trial, the home BP group with telemetric surveillance achieved better blood pressure control than the group with treatment titration based on office BP (systolic -4.7 [CI: -7; -2.4] mmHg, diastolic -1.3 [-2.5; 0.02] mmHg). With ABPM, patients frequently reported moderate to severe discomfort, limiting its practical applicability. CONCLUSION: Blood pressure measurement at home is recommended for treatment monitoring, using validated, automatic upper arm devices with data storage and trend analysis. Changes of treatment should be based on average values (28 home measurements) from seven days (two morning and two evening measurements per day). Office BP is mainly used for for screening purposes. There have not yet been any randomized trials comparing the three measuring methods in terms of hard cardiovascular endpoints.
BACKGROUND: The treatment of arterial hypertension can be monitored by office blood pressure (office BP), home blood pressure (home BP), or 24 hours ambulatory blood pressure (ABPM). In this review, we present current recommendations from Germany and from international guidelines as well as the findings of the main studies on the use of these methods to guide treatment. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed up to and including March 2020. Special attention was paid to guidelines and position papers. RESULTS: The guidelines offer heterogeneous recommendations for treatment monitoring. Home BP is the most reproducible method, with test-retest correlation coefficients of 0.91/0.86 (systolic/diastolic), in comparison to office BP (0.77/0.76). Two meta-analyses revealed better blood pressure control with home measurement than with usual care (systolic, -3.2 to -8.9 mmHg). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials also suggests that home measurement promotes adherence. In the randomized and controlled TASMINH4 trial, the home BP group with telemetric surveillance achieved better blood pressure control than the group with treatment titration based on office BP (systolic -4.7 [CI: -7; -2.4] mmHg, diastolic -1.3 [-2.5; 0.02] mmHg). With ABPM, patients frequently reported moderate to severe discomfort, limiting its practical applicability. CONCLUSION: Blood pressure measurement at home is recommended for treatment monitoring, using validated, automatic upper arm devices with data storage and trend analysis. Changes of treatment should be based on average values (28 home measurements) from seven days (two morning and two evening measurements per day). Office BP is mainly used for for screening purposes. There have not yet been any randomized trials comparing the three measuring methods in terms of hard cardiovascular endpoints.
Authors: Bernhard K Krämer; Martin Hausberg; Bernd Sanner; Kristina Kusche-Vihrog; Joachim Weil; Burkhard Weisser; Ulrich Wenzel; Peter Trenkwalder Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: B Kielblock; Ch Frye; S Kottmair; Th Hudler; E Siegmund-Schultze; M Middeke Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2007-03-02 Impact factor: 0.628
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
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Robert Fagard; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Josep Redon; Alberto Zanchetti; Michael Böhm; Thierry Christiaens; Renata Cifkova; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Maurizio Galderisi; Diederick E Grobbee; Tiny Jaarsma; Paulus Kirchhof; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stéphane Laurent; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Roland E Schmieder; Per Anton Sirnes; Peter Sleight; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Faiez Zannad; Josep Redon; Anna Dominiczak; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Peter M Nilsson; Michel Burnier; Margus Viigimaa; Ettore Ambrosioni; Mark Caufield; Antonio Coca; Michael Hecht Olsen; Roland E Schmieder; Costas Tsioufis; Philippe van de Borne; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Cetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Denis L Clement; Antonio Coca; Thierry C Gillebert; Michal Tendera; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Stefan D Anker; Johann Bauersachs; Jana Brguljan Hitij; Mark Caulfield; Marc De Buyzere; Sabina De Geest; Geneviève Anne Derumeaux; Serap Erdine; Csaba Farsang; Christian Funck-Brentano; Vjekoslav Gerc; Giuseppe Germano; Stephan Gielen; Herman Haller; Arno W Hoes; Jens Jordan; Thomas Kahan; Michel Komajda; Dragan Lovic; Heiko Mahrholdt; Michael Hecht Olsen; Jan Ostergren; Gianfranco Parati; Joep Perk; Jorge Polonia; Bogdan A Popescu; Zeljko Reiner; Lars Rydén; Yuriy Sirenko; Alice Stanton; Harry Struijker-Boudier; Costas Tsioufis; Philippe van de Borne; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Massimo Volpe; David A Wood Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 29.983