Clinical relevance of double-arm blood pressure measurement and prevalence of clinically important inter-arm blood pressure differences in Indian Primary Care.

Hypertension guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms at least once. However, this is seldom done due to uncertainties regarding measurement procedure and the implications of finding a clinically important inter-arm BP difference (IAD). This study aimed to provide insight into the prevalence of clinically important IADs in a large Indian primary care cohort. A number of 134678 (37% female) unselected Indian primary care participants, mean age 45.2 (SD 11.9) years, had BP measured in both arms using a standardized, triplicate, automated simultaneous measurement method (Microlife WatchBP Office Afib). On average, there were clinically minor differences in right and left arm BP values: systolic BP 134.4 vs. 134.2 mmHg (p<0.01) and diastolic BP 82.7 vs. 82.6 mmHg (p<0.01), respectively. Prevalence of significant mean systolic IAD between 10 and 15 mmHg was 7813 (5.8%). Systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg 2980 (2.2%) and diastolic IAD ≥ 10 mmHg 7151 (5.3%). In total, there were 7595 (5.6%) and 8548 (6.3%) participants with BP above the 140/90 mmHg threshold in only the left or right arm, respectively. Prevalence of participants with elevated BP on one arm only was highest in patients with a systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg; 19.1% and 13.7%, for left and right arm, respectively. This study shows that a substantial prevalence of IAD exist in Indian primary care patients. BP is above the diagnostic threshold for hypertension in one arm only for 6% of participants. These findings emphasise the importance of undertaking bilateral BP measurement in routine clinical practice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Clinical relevance of double-arm blood pressure measurement and prevalence of clinically important inter-arm blood pressure differences in Indian primary care.

Hypertension guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms at least once. However, this is seldom done due to uncertainties regarding measurement procedure and the implications of finding a clinically important inter-arm BP difference (IAD). This study aimed to provide insight into the prevalence of clinically important IADs in a large Indian primary care cohort. A number of 134 678 (37% female) unselected Indian primary care participants, mean age 45.2 (SD 11.9) years, had BP measured in both arms using a standardized, triplicate, automated simultaneous measurement method (Microlife WatchBP Office Afib). On average, there were clinically minor differences in right and left arm BP values: systolic BP 134.4 vs 134.2 mmHg (p < .01) and diastolic BP 82.7 vs 82.6 mmHg (p < .01), respectively. Prevalence of significant mean systolic IAD between 10 and 15 mmHg was 7,813 (5.8%). Systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg 2,980 (2.2%) and diastolic IAD ≥ 10 mmHg 7,151 (5.3%). In total, there were 7,595 (5.6%) and 8,548 (6.3%) participants with BP above the 140/90 mmHg threshold in only the left or right arm, respectively. Prevalence of participants with elevated BP on one arm only was highest in patients with a systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg; 19.1% and 13.7%, for left and right arm, respectively. This study shows that a substantial prevalence of IAD exists in Indian primary care patients. BP is above the diagnostic threshold for hypertension in one arm only for 6% of participants. These findings emphasize the importance of undertaking bilateral BP measurement in routine clinical practice.

Self-blood pressure measurement as compared to office blood pressure measurement in a large Indian population; the India Heart Study.

OBJECTIVE: India Heart Study (IHS) is aimed at investigating the agreement between office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) and self (S)BPM in a hypertension-naive population. METHODS: A total of 18 918 individuals (aged 42.6 ±â€Š11.7 years, 62.7% men), visiting 1237 primary care physicians across India, underwent OBPM. They performed SBPM for a period of 1 week using a validated oscillometric BP monitor that was preprogrammed to adhere to a guideline-based SBPM-schedule and blinded to the results. Thereafter, individuals underwent a second OBPM. Available laboratory results were obtained. Thresholds for elevated OBPM and SBPM were 140/90 and 135/85 mmHg, respectively. RESULTS: On the basis of first-visit OBPM and SBPM, there were 5787 (30.6%) individuals with normotension; 5208 (27.5%) with hypertension; 4485 (23.7%) with white-coat hypertension (WCH) and 3438 (18.2%) with masked hypertension. Thus, a diagnosis contradiction between SBPM and first-visit OBPM was seen in 9870 (41.9%) individuals. On the basis of second-visit OBPM, the normotension, hypertension, WCH and masked hypertension prevalence values were 7875 (41.6%); 4857 (25.7%); 2397 (12.7%) and 3789 (20.0%). There was poor agreement (kappa value 0.37) between OBPM of visit 1 and 2 with a diagnosis difference in 6027 (31.8%) individuals. The majority of masked hypertension and WCH individuals had BP values close to thresholds. CONCLUSION: There was a poor agreement between OBPM of visit1 and visit 2. Likewise, the agreement between OBPM at both visits and SBPM was poor. SBPM being considered to have a better correlation with patient prognosis should be the preferred method for diagnosing hypertension.

"Fast-tracking" in patients undergoing coronary artery surgery with severely impaired left ventricular function.

Cost containment and efficient resource utilization are motivating anaesthesiologists to early tracheal extubation of cardiac surgical patients. Fast track cardiac anaesthesia is both safe and cost-effective. We studied 45 patients with LVEF = 40% who underwent coronary revascularization and were put on the same fast track principle as those with normal ventricular function. Of these 31 patients (68.8%) had recent (<2 weeks) cardiac events requiring hospitalization. Acute myocardial infarction was documented in 8 patients (17.7%) and 23 (51.1%) had unstable angina. Congestive failure was present in 13 (28.9%) patients. Preoperative intravenous pharmacological support was needed in 17 (37.7%) patients, mechanical ventilation in 2 (4.5%) and IABP support in 1 (2.3%) patient. Anaesthetic management of these patients hinged on reduced usage of narcotics and muscle relaxants to facilitate early extubation. Operative strategy adopted was that of optimal revascularization. Beating heart surgery was adopted particularly in patients with low ejection fraction to avoid the attendant systemic and myocardial ill effects of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), especially in those who have had recent myocardial insults. Coronary surgery was performed on beating heart in 18 (40%) patients, while the other 27 (60%) patients were revascularised on CPB support. Of the 44 operative survivors, early extubation (<4 hours) was performed in 37 (84%) patients. Only 7 (16%) patients required ventilation for more than 24 hours. 3 out of these 7 patients were ventilated due to pulmonary reason and other 4 were ventilated since they were on IABP support. ICU stay was less than 24 hrs for 34/42 (80.9%) and hospital stay less than 6 days in 24/40 (60%). Fast tracking in cardiac surgery can be achieved with safety even in patients with impaired LV function.