The utility of home blood pressure load in predicting average self-measured blood pressure.

OBJECTIVES: Average values for self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) more accurately reflect a patient's risk of cardiovascular disease than do office measurements. Oftentimes, however, patients provide lists of individual home blood pressure (BP) measurements, and average values cannot be computed within the time constraints of a clinic visit. In contrast, the home BP load - defined as the proportion of BP values greater than a partition value (e.g., 130 mmHg) - can be easily calculated. We examined the utility of the BP load in predicting the mean SMBP and confirming elevated SMBP. METHODS: Four hundred twenty untreated adults at least 30 years of age acquired SMBP data twice in the morning and twice in the evening over 10 days. The 'true' SMBP was defined as the mean of these 40 determinations. RESULTS: Using all 10 days of BP data and a systolic BP threshold of 130 mmHg, the average SMBP associated with a home BP load of 0.50 was 130 mmHg, with a 95% prediction interval of 126-133 mmHg. True systolic SMBP was approximately 6 mmHg lower and higher at home BP loads of 0.25 and 0.75, respectively. There was a 90% probability that the true systolic SMBP was greater than 130 mmHg if the systolic home BP load was at least 0.60. Corresponding values for 3 days and 1 day of SMBP were at least 0.68 and at least 0.84, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates that the home BP load can be used to estimate the average BP acquired on home monitoring and confirm elevated SMBP.

Hypertension-mediated organ damage in masked hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: Masked hypertension - a blood pressure (BP) phenotype characterized by a clinic BP in the normal range but elevated BP outside the office - is associated with early hypertension-mediated organ damage. This study examined early target organ manifestations of masked hypertension diagnosed by home (HBPM) and ambulatory (ABPM) BP monitoring. METHODS: Left ventricular (LV) structure and diastolic function measured by echocardiography, microalbuminuria, and coronary artery calcification were evaluated in 420 patients with high clinic BP (SBP 120-150 mmHg or DBP 80-95 mmHg). Evidence of hypertension-mediated organ damage was compared in patients with sustained normotension, masked hypertension, and sustained hypertension based on measurements by HBPM, daytime ABPM, and 24-h ABPM. RESULTS: The 420 participants averaged 48 (12) [mean (SD)] years of age; the average clinic BP was 130 (13)/81 (8) mmHg. In individuals with masked hypertension diagnosed by HBPM, indexed LV mass, relative wall thickness, and e' and E/e' (indices of LV relaxation), were generally intermediate between values observed in normotensives and sustained hypertensive patients, and were significantly greater in masked hypertension than normotensives. Similar trends were observed when masked hypertension was diagnosed by ABPM but a diagnosis of masked hypertension was not as reliably associated with LV remodeling or impaired LV relaxation in comparison to normotensives. There were trends towards greater likelihoods of detectable urinary microalbumin and coronary calcification in masked hypertension than in normotensives. CONCLUSION: These results support previous studies demonstrating early hypertension-mediated organ damage in patients with masked hypertension, and suggest that HBPM may be superior to ABPM in identifying patients with masked hypertension who have early LV remodeling and diastolic LV dysfunction.

Does This Adult Patient Have Hypertension?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

Importance: Office blood pressure (BP) measurements are not the most accurate method to diagnose hypertension. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) are out-of-office alternatives, and ABPM is considered the reference standard for BP assessment. Objective: To systematically review the accuracy of oscillometric office and home BP measurement methods for correctly classifying adults as having hypertension, defined using ABPM. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and DARE databases and the American Heart Association website (from inception to April 2021) were searched, along with reference lists from retrieved articles. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently abstracted raw data and assessed methodological quality. A third author resolved disputes as needed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Random effects summary sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for BP measurement methods for the diagnosis of hypertension. ABPM (24-hour mean BP ≥130/80 mm Hg or mean BP while awake ≥135/85 mm Hg) was considered the reference standard. Results: A total of 12 cross-sectional studies (n = 6877) that compared conventional oscillometric office BP measurements to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM and 6 studies (n = 2049) that compared mean BP on HBPM to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM were included (range, 117-2209 participants per analysis); 2 of these studies (n = 3040) used consecutive samples. The overall prevalence of hypertension identified by 24-hour ABPM was 49% (95% CI, 39%-60%) in the pooled studies that evaluated office measures and 54% (95% CI, 39%-69%) in studies that evaluated HBPM. All included studies assessed sensitivity and specificity at the office BP threshold of 140/90 mm Hg and the home BP threshold of 135/85 mm Hg. Conventional office oscillometric measurement (1-5 measurements in a single visit with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 51% (95% CI, 36%-67%), specificity of 88% (95% CI, 80%-96%), positive LR of 4.2 (95% CI, 2.5-6.0), and negative LR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.69). Mean BP with HBPM (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-86%), specificity of 76% (95% CI, 65%-86%), positive LR of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.0), and negative LR of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.20-0.47). Two studies (1 with a consecutive sample) that compared unattended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had sensitivity ranging from 48% to 51% and specificity ranging from 80% to 91%. One study that compared attended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had a sensitivity of 87.6% (95% CI, 83%-92%) and specificity of 24.1% (95% CI, 16%-32%). Conclusions and Relevance: Office measurements of BP may not be accurate enough to rule in or rule out hypertension; HBPM may be helpful to confirm a diagnosis. When there is uncertainty around threshold values or when office and HBPM are not in agreement, 24-hour ABPM should be considered to establish the diagnosis.