Identification of the Optimal Protocol for Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement Among Patients With Treated Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) involving repeated, unobserved blood pressure (BP) readings during one clinic visit is recommended for in-office diagnosis and assessment of hypertension. However, the optimal AOBP protocol to determine BP control in the least amount of time with the fewest BP readings is yet to be determined and was the aim of this study. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-nine patients (mean age 62.8 ± 12.1 years; 50.3% female) with treated hypertension referred to specialist clinics at 2 sites underwent AOBP in a quiet room alone. Eight BP measurements were taken starting immediately after sitting and then at 2-minute intervals (15 minutes total). The optimal AOBP protocol was defined by the smallest mean difference and highest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) compared with daytime ambulatory BP (ABP). The same BP device (Mobil-o-graph, IEM) was used for both AOBP and daytime ABP. RESULTS: Average 15-minute AOBP and daytime ABP were 134 ± 22/82 ± 13 and 137 ± 17/83 ± 11 mm Hg, respectively. The optimal AOBP protocol was derived within a total duration of 6 minutes from the average of 2 measures started after 2 and 4 minutes of seated rest (systolic BP: mean difference (95% confidence interval) 0.004(-2.21, 2.21) mm Hg, P = 1.0; ICC = 0.81; diastolic BP: mean difference 0.37(-0.90, 1.63) mm Hg, P = 0.57; ICC = 0.86). AOBP measures taken after 8 minutes tended to underestimate daytime ABP (whether as a single BP or the average of more than 1 BP reading). CONCLUSIONS: Only 2 AOBP readings taken over 6 minutes (excluding an initial reading immediately after sitting) may be needed to be comparable with daytime ABP.

Ischemic postconditioning does not improve peripheral endothelial function in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether ischemic postconditioning (IPC) could improve peripheral endothelial function in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Of 102 patients randomly assigned to an IPC or standard protocol to study infarct size utilizing cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, 84 patients had peripheral endothelial function assessed with brachial ultrasound measures and peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT) during reactive hyperemia 3 days after PCI. Overall IPC was not associated with a smaller infarct size compared to controls, though there was a trend towards greater myocardial salvage with IPC. Patients randomized to IPC (n=43; age 56 ± 11 years; 85% male) and standard protocol (n=41; age 56 ± 10 years; 88% male) underwent endothelial function assessment. Flow mediated vasodilatation was not significantly greater in the IPC group than in the standard group (7.4 ± 4.9% versus 6.6 ± 4.0% respectively, p=0.40) nor was peak hyperemic velocity-time integral (78 ± 26 cm versus 71 ± 30 cm respectively, p=0.28). Similarly, the PAT hyperemic ratio was not significantly greater in the IPC group than in the standard group (2.0 ± 0.9 versus 1.8 ± 0.6 respectively, p=0.14). In conclusion, IPC did not improve early peripheral endothelial function in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.

No cardioprotective benefit of ischemic postconditioning in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Postconditioning is a potential cardioprotective strategy that has demonstrated conflicting and variable reductions in infarct size in human trials. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether postconditioning could increase the extent of myocardial salvage in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: One hundred two patients (aged 57 ± 11 years; 88% male) were randomly assigned to a postconditioning or standard protocol. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging was performed 3 days after PPCI to measure the volumetric extent of myocardial necrosis and the area at risk. RESULTS: With similar time-to-reperfusion (170 ± 84 minutes in the postconditioning group vs. 150 ± 70 minutes in the standard group, P = 0.22), the myocardial salvage index was not significantly different between the postconditioned group and the control group, averaging 42 ± 22% vs. 33 ± 21%, respectively (P = 0.08). Furthermore, postconditioning was not associated with a smaller infarct size compared to controls (13 ± 7 g/m(2) vs. 15 ± 8 g/m(2), respectively, P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Postconditioning does not significantly increase myocardial salvage or reduce infarct size in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. However, the possibility of a more modest impact of postconditioning cannot be excluded with our sample size.