Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris) ; 67(3): 180-185, 2018 Jun.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29793672

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement compared to 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), Home BP measurement and manual BP. PATIENTS AND METHODOLOGY: A total of 123 hypertensive patients were included. Overall, 68 completed the 4 measurement: Manual BP in the office (Omron 705 CP 3 measurements), ABPM (Spacelab of 96 measurement/per 24hours), Home BP (18 measurement during 3 days), AOBP using the SPRINT methodology: lying patient, isolated with an automatic measurement (Dinamap) every minutes during 8minutes (average of the last 3 measurement). Twenty-two out of 123 patients (26%) did not complete the Home BP measurement. RESULTS: The average of AOBP measurement using SPRINT is 132±12/69±9mmHg, of ABPM 134±13/79±9, of Home BP: 135±13/70±13 and of manual BP: 138±13/72±11mmHg The Bland & Altman method highlight that the AOBP, the ABPM and home BP measurement are 3 substitutable methods. The confidence interval is smaller between the ABPM and the AOBP than with the home BP. CONCLUSION: The automated office blood pressure, as the Home BP measurement, can be considered a reliable substitute for the ABPM, when the later is not accessible, and when a repeated therapeutic evaluation is needed, or when the home BP measurement is not done. These results encourage us to use it more frequently as the Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommend it.


Subject(s)
Blood Pressure Determination/methods , Hypertension/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Office Visits , Prospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...