Long-term relationship between unattended automated blood pressure and auscultatory BP measurements in hypertensive patients.

AIMS: Unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) has attracted more attention since SPRINT trial had been published. However, its long-term relationship to attended office blood pressure (AuscOBP) is not known. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in four Czech academic hypertension centers. All subjects attended four clinical visits three months apart. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; AuscOBP was measured three times with auscultatory method by the physician. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed within one week from the second clinical visit. RESULTS: Data on 112 subjects aged 65.6 ± 10.8 years with mean AuscOBP 128.2 ± 12.2/78.5 ± 10.3 mm Hg are reported. Across the four clinical visits, the uAutoOBP was by 10.1/3.7 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP and the mean difference was similar during all four visits (P≥.061). Both uAutoOBP and AuscOBP had similar intra-individual variability during study follow-up as demonstrated by similar intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, for systolic ICC = 0.50, for diastolic ICC = 0.72). However, the intra-individual variability of the systolic AuscOBP and uAutoOBP difference was high as demonstrated by low ICCs for absolute (ICC = 0.17 [95%CI, 0.09 - 0.25]) and low κ coefficients for categorized differences (κ ≤ 0.16). The main determinant of AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was AuscOBP level. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: Although mean AuscOBP-uAutoOBP differences were relatively similar across the four clinical visits, intra-individual variability of this difference was high. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM. Therefore, uAutoOBP cannot be used as a replacement for ABPM.

In the aftermath of SPRINT: further comparison of unattended automated office blood pressure measurement and 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.

AIMS: Several papers reported that unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) is closely related to daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). In the present study, we aim to study uAutoOBP and its relation to 24-hour ABPM and ABPM variability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in two Czech academic hypertension centres. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; attended BP three times with auscultatory method (AuscOBP) by the physician. ABPM was performed within one week from the clinical visit. RESULTS: Data on 98 subjects aged 67.7 ± 9.3 years with 24-hour ABPM 120.3 ± 10.6/72.7 ± 7.9 mm Hg are reported. uAutoOBP was lower than 24-hour (by -5.2 ± 11.3/-0.5 ± 6.9 mm Hg) and daytime (by -6.7 ± 12.82.4 ± 8.0 mm Hg) ABPM and the individual variability of the difference was very large (up to 30 mm Hg). The correlation coefficients between ABPM and uAutoOBP were similar compared to AuscOBP (p ≥ .17). Variability of uAutoOBP, but not AuscOBP, readings during one clinical visit was related to short-term blood pressure variability of ABPM. The difference between AuscOBP and uAutoOBP was larger in patients with white-coat effect compared to other blood pressure control groups (25.1 ± 7.0 vs. 2.2 ± 10.3 mm Hg; p = .0036). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that uAutoOBP is not good predictor of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, not even of the daytime values. It might, however, indicate short-term blood pressure variability and, when compared with AuscOBP, also detect patients with white-coat effect.

A multicentre study on unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in treated hypertensive patients.

AIMS: Unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) may eliminate white-coat effect. In the present study, we studied its relationships to attended office blood pressure (BP) and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in four Czech academic hypertension centres. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; attended BP was measured six times: three times with auscultatory method (AuscOBP) by the physician followed optionally by three oscillometric measurements (OscOBP). ABPM was performed within one week from the clinical visit. RESULTS: Data on 172 subjects aged 63.7 ± 12.4 years with AuscOBP 127.6 ± 12.1/77.6 ± 10.0 mm Hg are reported. uAutoOBP was by 8.5 ± 9.0/3.0 ± 6.1 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference increased with the AuscOBP level and it did not depend on any other factor. OscOBP differed by 8.6 ± 8.6/1.9 ± 5.7 mm Hg from uAutoOBP. 24-hour mean BP was by 4.2 ± 12.1/3.5 ± 7.8 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP and by 4.3 ± 11.0/0.5 ± 6.9 mm Hg higher than uAutoOBP; the correlation coefficients of 24-hour mean BP with AuscOBP and with uAutoOBP did not differ (p for difference ≥.13). In the lowest BP group (systolic AuscOBP <120 mm Hg or diastolic AuscOBP <70 mm Hg), both AuscOBP and uAutoOBP were lower than 24-hour mean BP, while in the highest BP group (systolic AuscOBP ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic AuscOBP ≥90 mm Hg), they were higher. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to uAutoOBP, attended BP measurement gives higher values, both when measured with auscultatory or oscillometric method. Inter-individual variability of AutoOBP - uAuscOBP difference, as well of uAutoOBP - ABPM difference, is large. We did not prove that uAutoOBP would be associated to 24-hour ambulatory BP more closely than attended BP.

Quality improvement project for managing elevated blood pressure in a primary care setting.

Elevated blood pressure (BP) and prehypertension increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, a national health concern. This article presents a quality improvement project implemented within a primary care setting that aimed at lowering cardiovascular risk by improving the identification, treatment, and follow-up of patients with elevated BP. This project was designed and implemented to address the identified deficiencies contributing to poor identification and follow-up of patients with elevated BP. The intervention was multi-pronged and comprised a staff educational program, introduction of a new method for measuring BP using the BpTRU™ device, and patient educational intervention. A significant improvement in staff BP knowledge scores was achieved following the intervention (p<0.05). Patient participants also exhibited a significant improvement in post-intervention BP measurements (p<0.05). This project showed that the implementation of a quality improvement project in a primary care setting can lead to significant improvements in staff BP knowledge and patient BP readings. However, future research in this area is required to determine whether particular lifestyle changes are directly associated with the reduction in BP.

Blood pressure measurement in peritoneal dialysis: which method is best?

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to monitoring blood pressure (BP) in the peritoneal dialysis (PD) population is unclear. Ambulatory BP monitoring reliably predicts prognosis, but can be inconvenient. The accuracy of home BP monitoring in this population is unproven. The automated BpTRU device (BpTRU Medical Devices, Coquitlam, BC, Canada), which provides an average of up to 6 successive in-office BP measurements, has not been studied in this patient group. METHODS: We studied 17 patients (average age: 54 ± 12 years; 12 men, 5 women; 94% on automated PD) attending a single center. All patients underwent office, home, BpTRU, and ambulatory BP measurement. The reference standard for analysis was daytime ambulatory BP. Correlation between the referent method and each comparator method was determined (Pearson correlation coefficient), and Bland-Altman scatter plots depicting the differences in the BP measurements were constructed. RESULTS: Mean office BP (126.4 ± 16.9/78.8 ± 11.6 mmHg) and BpTRU BP (123.8 ± 13.7/80.7 ± 11.1 mmHg) closely approximated mean daytime ambulatory BP (129.3 ± 14.8/78.2 ± 7.9 mmHg). Mean home BP (143.8 ± 15.0/89.9 ± 28.1 mmHg) significantly overestimated mean daytime systolic BP by 14.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval: 4.3 mmHg to 24.1 mmHg; p = 0.008). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated poorest agreement between home BP and daytime ambulatory BP. No patient had "white-coat hypertension," and only 1 patient had false-resistant hypertension. Most patients showed abnormal nocturnal dipping patterns (non-dipping: n = 11; reverse-dipping: n = 5; normal dipping: n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: We report a novel finding that BP measurement using the BpTRU device is more accurate than home BP measurement in a PD population. Potential explanations for this observation include poor home BP measurement technique, use of poorly validated home BP measurement devices, or a reduced prevalence of white-coat effect among PD patients. Our study also confirms that, in the PD population, BP measurements vary considerably with patient location, time of day, and measurement technique.