Unattended automatic blood pressure measurements vs conventional office readings in predicting hypertension-mediated organ damage.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is a leading cardiovascular risk factor. Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is pivotal in hypertension diagnosis and management. Conventional office blood pressure measurements (OBPMs) are error­prone, exacerbated by the white­coat effect. Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement (UAOBPM) is emerging as an alternative, mitigating the white­coat effect. However, its ability to predict hypertension­mediated organ damage (HMOD) remains disputable. OBJECTIVES: This study compares UAOBPM with OBPM in terms of their association with various types of HMOD, including left ventricular hypertrophy, left atrial enlargement, left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction, intima­media complex thickening, microalbuminuria, and abnormal pulse wave velocity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 219 hypertensive patients were recruited, interviewed, and examined. Subsequently, BP measurements were conducted in a randomized manner: 1) UAOBPM, after 5 minutes of solitary rest in an examination room, BP was automatically measured 3 times at 1­minute intervals; 2) OBPM, after 5 minutes of rest, a physician performed 3 consecutive BP measurements at 1­minute intervals. Subsequent evaluations aimed to detect HMOD and included echocardiography, carotid artery ultrasound, pulse wave velocity assessment, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: UAOBP values were lower than the OBP ones (mean [SD], 124.7 [14.4] vs 128.2 [14.2] mm Hg; P <0.001 for systolic BP, and 73.3 [10.2] vs 75.2 [10.6] mm Hg; P <0.001 for diastolic BP). Correlation and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed no superiority of either method in predicting HMOD. CONCLUSIONS: The UAOBPM did not prove superior to OBPM in predicting HMOD. Further research is warranted to determine the role of UAOBPM in clinical practice.