Diagnostic precision of mentally estimated home blood pressure means.

CONTEXT: Paper home blood pressure (HBP) charts are commonly brought to physicians at office visits. The precision and accuracy of mental calculations of blood pressure (BP) means are not known. METHODS: A total of 109 hypertensive patients were instructed to measure and record their HBP for 1 week and to bring their paper charts to their office visit. Study section 1: HBP means were calculated electronically and compared to corresponding in-office BP estimates made by physicians. Study section 2: 100 randomly ordered HBP charts were re-examined repetitively by 11 evaluators. Each evaluator estimated BP means four times in 5, 15, 30, and 60 s (random order) allocated for the task. BP means and diagnostic performance (determination of therapeutic systolic and diastolic BP goals attained or not) were compared between physician estimates and electronically calculated results. RESULTS: Overall, electronically and mentally calculated BP means were not different. Individual analysis showed that 83% of in-office physician estimates were within a 5-mmHg systolic BP range. There was diagnostic disagreement in 15% of cases. Performance improved consistently when the time allocated for BP estimation was increased from 5 to 15 s and from 15 to 30 s, but not when it exceeded 30 s. CONCLUSION: Mentally calculating HBP means from paper charts can cause a number of diagnostic errors. Chart evaluation exceeding 30 s does not significantly improve accuracy. BP-measuring devices with modern analytical capacities could be useful to physicians.

Comparison of Different Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement Devices: Evidence of Nonequivalence and Clinical Implications.

BACKGROUND: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measuring devices are increasingly recommended as preferred blood pressure (BP) diagnostic tools, but it is unclear how they compare and how clinical environments impact their performance. METHODS: This prospective randomized factorial parallel 4-group study compared BP estimates by BpTRU (VSM MedTech, Vancouver, BC, Canada) and Omron HEM 907 (Omron Healthcare, Kyoto, Japan) devices in closed vs open areas. Patients diagnosed with hypertension were recruited during office visits. After baseline open-room AOBP measurement with the BpTRU, patients had a second BP measurement with either the BpTRU or HEM 907 in either open or closed areas. Absolute BP levels and differences between the first and second measurements were compared. Diagnostic performance was also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-eight patients were studied. Their mean age was 66.2 ± 12.0 years, and 62% were men. The mean of first AOBP estimates was 127.4/73.3 mm Hg. Analyses of subsequent measurements revealed no influence of open or closed areas on BP means and diagnostic performance. Conversely, the Omron HEM 907 exceeded BpTRU systolic BP measurements by 4.6 mm Hg (< 0.01) in closed areas and by 3.9 mm Hg (< 0.01) in open areas. The discrepancy between devices was amplified at lower BP levels. CONCLUSIONS: Although different areas did not influence BP estimates, the Omron HEM 907 significantly exceeded BpTRU measurements on average and especially at lower BP levels. These differences should be considered when interchanging devices and could have clinical decision impacts in a population of patients treated for hypertension. Our results support the constant use of only 1 device type in a given clinic.

The Gap Between Manual and Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements Results at a Hypertension Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) readings taken in clinics are often higher than BP readings taken in a research setting. Recent guidelines and clinical trials have highlighted the necessity of using automated office blood pressure (AOBP) devices and standardizing measurement procedures. The goal of the present study was to compare AOBP vs manual BP measurement in both research and clinical environments in which operators and devices were the same and measurement procedures were standardized and optimal. METHODS: Clinical manual BP and AOBP measurement estimates were gathered from a retrospective cohort of patients followed in a hypertension clinic. Research AOBP and manual BP measurement data were obtained from past research studies. Descriptive statistics and agreement analyses with Cohen kappa coefficients were developed. The AOBP/manual BP measurement gap between clinical and research follow-up was compared using an unpaired t test. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-eight patients were included in the clinical cohort, and 195 patients contributed to research-grade BP data. All patients had hypertension. AOBP averages were lower than manual measurement averages in both clinical (-3.6 ± 14.9 mm Hg / -3.0 ± 8.8 mm Hg) and research (-2.7 ± 10.0 / -2.4 ± 6.3 mm Hg) environments. The gap between measurement methods did not differ between research and clinical data. Cohen kappa coefficient was lower in the clinical context because of greater variability and more time between BP measurements (5.5 ± 2.9 months). CONCLUSIONS: Manual BP readings were slightly higher than AOBP estimates. The difference was not influenced by the real-world context of clinical practice. Office nonautomated BP measurements may still be valuable if measurement procedures are well standardized and performed by trained nurses.

Unreliability of home blood pressure measurement and the effect of a patient-oriented intervention.

BACKGROUND: Home blood pressure (BP) measurement (HBPM) is recommended for the diagnosis and follow-up of high BP. It is unclear how this aspect of BP monitoring has evolved over the years and whether interventions could influence patient adherence to HBPM guidelines. METHODS: After a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study performed in 2010, a passive, multimodal intervention, focused on improving adherence to HBPM guidelines, was implemented. A second study was conducted in 2014 to measure its effect. RESULTS: In 2010 and 2014, 1010 and 1005 patients, respectively, completed the questionnaire. In 2010 and 2014, 82% and 84% of patients, respectively, self-measured their BP. Reporting of HBPM and adherence to recommended procedures was suboptimal. Only 34.0% of patients in 2010 and 31.7% in 2014 brought > 80% of their measurements to their doctor. Only 49.6% in 2010 and 52.9% in 2014 prepared > 80% of the time for HBPM. Only 48.1% in 2010 and 52.1% in 2014 rested for 5 minutes > 80% of the time before HBPM. Only 15% of patients in 2010 and 18% in 2014 were defined as sufficiently compliant with all HBPM procedures. Paired analysis of a subset of 535 patients who participated in the 2010 and 2014 studies showed no clinically significant differences in reliability between the 2 surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to HBPM guidelines was suboptimal in 2010 and still is in 2014 despite a passive, multimodal intervention. Active training in HBPM procedures should be studied. Greater automation could improve HBPM reliability.

Rapid progression to gummatous syphilitic hepatitis and neurosyphilis in a patient with newly-diagnosed HIV.

We review the literature on hepatic involvement in patients with HIV and syphilis co-infection and describe a case of rapid progression to neurosyphilis and presumed gummatous syphilitic hepatitis in a patient newly diagnosed with HIV. To our knowledge, this is the first case of syphilitic hepatitis with gummas described in the HIV population.

Management of chronic allograft nephropathy: a systematic review.

Despite improving immunosuppressive protocols in renal transplantation, chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) remains a major impediment to long-term graft survival. The optimal immunosuppressive regimen for a patient with CAN is unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate the various immunosuppressive management strategies of biopsy-proven CAN and of chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD) (no biopsy). A systematic review of randomized trials (n = 12 trials with 635 patients) was conducted. Studies included patients who were >6 mo post-transplant. All patients were on a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI), most often cyclosporine, and were randomized to convert to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), tacrolimus, or sirolimus (Rapa) or to add azathioprine, MMF or Rapa to their current regimen. Follow-up time was 6 to 36 mo. The outcome measures evaluated were renal function in 11 of 12 studies and repeat renal biopsy results in one study. The methodological quality scores of the trials were generally low, using the Jadad scale (median value 2/5). Results varied between studies but suggested that CNI withdrawal is safe and that conversion to MMF or Rapa may be beneficial. The incidence of adverse effects ranged from 0% to 68% between the studies, and medication withdrawal occurred in 0% to 24% of patients. The review did not result in a consensus regarding the management of CAN and CAD. Further studies are required to determine the best therapeutic option for patients with CAD and CAN.

Second reading of coronary angiograms by radiologists.

BACKGROUND: In many hospitals in the provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia, as well as in some hospitals in the rest of Canada, coronary angiograms are performed and interpreted by invasive cardiologists, and are later reinterpreted and reported by radiologists. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of second readings of coronary angiograms by radiologists. METHODS: Cardiology and radiology reports of a total of 160 consecutive coronary angiograms were compared from patients at three hospitals. Ten segments of the coronary tree were considered and 1582 segments were included. Agreement between cardiology and radiology interpretations was evaluated using per cent agreement, Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. Agreement was calculated for each arterial segment and for each hospital. RESULTS: Excellent agreement was found between cardiology and radiology interpretations of coronary angiograms. Per cent agreement ranged from 94.9% to 100%, Pearson correlation ranged from 0.83 to 0.97 and Bland-Altman limits of agreement ranged from -18.1 to 19.4. Agreement was similar for each segment and for each hospital. Agreement remained excellent after exclusion of normal angiograms (n=348 segments), with a per cent agreement of 96.3%. Secondary analyses demonstrated a mean time delay of 13 days between angiograms and the subsequent radiology reports. CONCLUSIONS: There are minimal differences between the cardiology and radiology interpretations of coronary angiograms. Routine second reading by a radiologist may be redundant.