Attended and Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements Have Better Agreement With Ambulatory Monitoring Than Conventional Office Readings.

BACKGROUND: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement is superior to conventional office blood pressure (OBP) because it eliminates the "white coat effect" and shows a strong association with ambulatory blood pressure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in 146 participants with office hypertension, and we compared AOBP readings, taken with or without the presence of study personnel, before and after the conventional office readings to determine whether their variation in blood pressure showed a difference in blood pressure values. We also compared AOBP measurements with daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and conventional office readings. The mean age of the studied population was 56±12 years, and 53.4% of participants were male. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias (ie, mean of the differences) of 0.6±6 mm Hg systolic for attended AOBP compared with unattended and 1.4±6 and 0.1±6 mm Hg bias for attended compared with unattended systolic AOBP when measurements were performed before and after conventional readings, respectively. A small bias was observed when unattended and attended systolic AOBP measurements were compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (1.3±13 and 0.6±13 mm Hg, respectively). Biases were higher for conventional OBP readings compared with unattended AOBP (-5.6±15 mm Hg for unattended AOBP and oscillometric OBP measured by a physician, -6.8±14 mm Hg for unattended AOBP and oscillometric OBP measured by a nurse, and -2.1±12 mm Hg for unattended AOBP and auscultatory OBP measured by a second physician). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that independent of the presence or absence of medical staff, AOBP readings revealed similar values that were closer to daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring than conventional office readings, further supporting the use of AOBP in the clinical setting.

Guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department: a critical appraisal.

Several guidelines often exist on the same topic, sometimes offering divergent recommendations. For the clinician, it can be difficult to understand the reasons for this divergence and how to select the right recommendations. The aim of this study is to compare different guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation (AF), and provide practical and affordable advice on its management in the acute setting. A PubMed search was performed in May 2014 to identify the three most recent and cited published guidelines on AF. During the 1-week school of the European School of Internal Medicine, the attending residents were divided in five working groups. The three selected guidelines were compared with five specific questions. The guidelines identified were: the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on AF, the Canadian guidelines on emergency department management of AF, and the American Heart Association guidelines on AF. Twenty-one relevant sub-questions were identified. For five of these, there was no agreement between guidelines; for three, there was partial agreement; for three data were not available (issue not covered by one of the guidelines), while for ten, there was complete agreement. Evidence on the management of AF in the acute setting is largely based on expert opinion rather than clinical trials. While there is broad agreement on the management of the haemodynamically unstable patient and the use of drugs for rate-control strategy, there is less agreement on drug therapy for rhythm control and no agreement on several other topics.