Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home: A Joint Policy Statement From the American Heart Association and American Medical Association.

The diagnosis and management of hypertension, a common cardiovascular risk factor among the general population, have been based primarily on the measurement of blood pressure (BP) in the office. BP may differ considerably when measured in the office and when measured outside of the office setting, and higher out-of-office BP is associated with increased cardiovascular risk independent of office BP. Self-measured BP monitoring, the measurement of BP by an individual outside of the office at home, is a validated approach for out-of-office BP measurement. Several national and international hypertension guidelines endorse self-measured BP monitoring. Indications include the diagnosis of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension and the identification of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension. Other indications include confirming the diagnosis of resistant hypertension and detecting morning hypertension. Validated self-measured BP monitoring devices that use the oscillometric method are preferred, and a standardized BP measurement and monitoring protocol should be followed. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials indicates that self-measured BP monitoring is associated with a reduction in BP and improved BP control, and the benefits of self-measured BP monitoring are greatest when done along with cointerventions. The addition of self-measured BP monitoring to office BP monitoring is cost-effective compared with office BP monitoring alone or usual care among individuals with high office BP. The use of self-measured BP monitoring is commonly reported by both individuals and providers. Therefore, self-measured BP monitoring has high potential for improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension in the United States. Randomized controlled trials examining the impact of self-measured BP monitoring on cardiovascular outcomes are needed. To adequately address barriers to the implementation of self-measured BP monitoring, financial investment is needed in the following areas: improving education and training of individuals and providers, building health information technology capacity, incorporating self-measured BP readings into clinical performance measures, supporting cointerventions, and enhancing reimbursement.

A Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Common Office Blood Pressure Measurement Protocols.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to measuring office blood pressure (BP) is uncertain. We aimed to compare BP measurement protocols that differed based on numbers of readings within and between visits and by assessment method. METHODS: We enrolled a sample of 707 employees without known hypertension or cardiovascular disease, and obtained 6 standardized BP readings during each of 3 office visits at least 1 week apart, using mercury sphygmomanometer and BpTRU oscillometric devices (18 readings per participant) for a total of 12,645 readings. We used confirmatory factor analysis to develop a model estimating "true" office BP that could be used to compare the probability of correctly classifying participants' office BP status using differing numbers and types of office BP readings. RESULTS: Averaging 2 systolic BP readings across 2 visits correctly classified participants as having BP below or above the 140 mm Hg threshold at least 95% of the time if the averaged reading was <134 or >149 mm Hg, respectively. Our model demonstrated that more confidence was gained by increasing the number of visits with readings than by increasing the number of readings within a visit. No clinically significant confidence was gained by dropping the first reading vs. averaging all readings, nor by measuring with a manual mercury device vs. with an automated oscillometric device. CONCLUSIONS: Averaging 2 BP readings across 2 office visits appeared to best balance increased confidence in office BP status with efficiency of BP measurement, though the preferred measurement strategy may vary with the clinical context.

Prevalence of Masked Hypertension Among US Adults With Nonelevated Clinic Blood Pressure.

Masked hypertension (MHT), defined as nonelevated blood pressure (BP) in the clinic setting and elevated BP assessed by ambulatory monitoring, is associated with increased risk of target organ damage, cardiovascular disease, and mortality. Currently, no estimate of MHT prevalence exists for the general US population. After pooling data from the Masked Hypertension Study (n = 811), a cross-sectional clinical investigation of systematic differences between clinic BP and ambulatory BP (ABP) in a community sample of employed adults in the New York City metropolitan area (2005-2012), and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; 2005-2010; n = 9,316), an ongoing nationally representative US survey, we used multiple imputation to impute ABP-defined hypertension status for NHANES participants and estimate MHT prevalence among the 139 million US adults with nonelevated clinic BP, no history of overt cardiovascular disease, and no use of antihypertensive medication. The estimated US prevalence of MHT in 2005-2010 was 12.3% of the adult population (95% confidence interval: 10.0, 14.5)-approximately 17.1 million persons aged ≥21 years. Consistent with prior research, estimated MHT prevalence was higher among older persons, males, and those with prehypertension or diabetes. To our knowledge, this study provides the first estimate of US MHT prevalence-nearly 1 in 8 adults with nonelevated clinic BP-and suggests that millions of US adults may be misclassified as not having hypertension.

A call for comparative effectiveness research to learn whether routine clinical care decisions can protect from dementia and cognitive decline.

Common diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation are probable risk factors for dementia, suggesting that their treatments may influence the risk and rate of cognitive and functional decline. Moreover, specific therapies and medications may affect long-term brain health through mechanisms that are independent of their primary indication. While surgery, benzodiazepines, and anti-cholinergic drugs may accelerate decline or even raise the risk of dementia, other medications act directly on the brain to potentially slow the pathology that underlies Alzheimer's and other dementia. In other words, the functional and cognitive decline in vulnerable patients may be influenced by the choice of treatments for other medical conditions. Despite the importance of these questions, very little research is available. The Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation convened an advisory panel to discuss the existing evidence and to recommend strategies to accelerate the development of comparative effectiveness research on how choices in the clinical care of common chronic diseases may protect from cognitive decline and dementia.

A Tale of 3 Trials: ACCORD, SPRINT, and SPS3. What Happened?

Within the last several years, the National Institutes of Health has supported three randomized clinical trials to determine whether lower than usually recommended goals for treatment of hypertension would have greater benefit for prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke. These were the ACCCORD, SPRINT, and Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) Trials. Together they enrolled 17,114 participants. Results for all three have been reported. The trials differ from each other in their inclusion criteria, target blood pressures for the lower goal (intensive treatment), but are similar in many respects. The results with regard to their primary outcome were different: not significant for ACCORD and SPS3, but definitely significant for SPRINT. Subgroup analysis revealed differences and similarities. When viewed together and with recent large observational studies, they support a conclusion that a systolic pressure in the range of 125-135 mm Hg range is likely to be optimal on treatment for most hypertensive patients.

Blood Pressure Out of the Office: Its Time Has Finally Come.

The diagnosis of hypertension includes measurement of blood pressure out of the office by either 24-hour ambulatory monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring. These methods have led to recognition of "white coat hypertension" (WCH) and "masked hypertension" (MH). Research in the 1930s first demonstrated that blood pressures in the office were often far different from those out of the office, at a time when there was no effective treatment. International attention was focused on another imminent world war and a highly controversial election in the United States. Hypertension was not a priority for concern. From the 1950s onward: (i) epidemiology linked hypertension to risk of cardiovascular disease, (ii) effective and safe drugs for treatment of hypertension appeared, (iii) randomized clinical trials demonstrated that drug treatment of hypertension is highly effective for prevention of cardiovascular disease, and (iv) advances in technology led to development of small, portable devices for recording blood pressure noninvasively at home or during usual activities. Accurate measurement of blood pressure in "real life" is now necessary and feasible for appropriate diagnosis and assessment of treatment. Out-of-office blood pressure measurement is emerging as the standard of care for hypertension.

Is renal denervation an effective treatment for hypertension? Comparison of recent meta-analysis and a multinational registry.

We compared the impact of renal denervation (RDN) on blood pressures using results available from a recent comprehensive meta-analysis and an international registry. The meta-analysis summarized recent trials in which RDN was compared with control groups that were treated only with antihypertensive medication; the registry only included patients treated with RDN. Both publications presented pretreatment pressures and changes 6 months postbaseline. Significant reductions in office systolic pressure and 24 h ambulatory systolic pressure were observed in both groups of the meta-analysis and the registry. However, the magnitude of blood pressure reduction with RDN and medical treatment was comparable in both the meta-analysis and registry. RDN has not been shown to be superior to medical management of hypertension in this combined experience of nearly 2000 hypertensive patients.

The Mount Sinai clinical pathway for the management of pheochromocytoma.

OBJECTIVE: Pheochromocytomas are complex tumors that require a comprehensive and systematic management plan orchestrated by a multidisciplinary team. METHODS: To achieve these ends, The Mount Sinai Adrenal Center hosted an interdisciplinary retreat where experts in adrenal disorders assembled with the aim of developing a clinical pathway for the management of pheochromocytomas. RESULTS: The result was a consensus for the diagnosis, perioperative management, and postoperative management of pheochromocytomas, with specific recommendations from our team of adrenal experts, as well as a review of the current literature. CONCLUSION: Our clinical pathway can be applied by other institutions directly or may serve as a guide for institution-specific management.