Air Pollution and Home Blood Pressure: The 2021 Athens Wildfires.

INTRODUCTION: Fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 µm (PM2.5) in the ambient air has been associated with increased blood pressure (BP) levels and new-onset hypertension. However, the association of BP with a sudden upsurge of PM2.5 in extreme conditions has not yet been demonstrated. AIM: To evaluate the association between PM2.5 pollutants the week before, during, and the week after the 2021 wildfires in Athens (Greece) and home BP measurements. METHODS: Home BP measurements were performed, and the readings were transferred to the doctor's office through a telemonitoring system on the patient's Smartphone application. Data from a calibrated, sensor-based PM2.5 monitoring network assessed PM2.5 exposure. RESULTS: PM2.5 pollutants demonstrated a gradual surge while the particle concentration was not different in the selected air pollution measurement stations. A total of 20 consecutive patients with controlled hypertension, mean age 61 ± 9 years, were included in the analysis. For one unit in µg/m3 increase of PM2.5 particle concentration, an average of 2.1 mmHg increment in systolic BP was observed after adjustment for confounders (P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings raise the hypothesis that short-term exposure to raised PM2.5 concentrations in the air appears to be associated with increases in systolic home BP." Telemonitoring systems of home BP recordings may provide important information for the clinical management of hypertensive patients, at least in conditions of major environmental disturbances, such as wildfires.

Automated office blood pressure is in agreement with awake and mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure at the lower blood pressure range.

Automated office blood pressure measurement eliminates the white coat effect and is associated with awake ambulatory blood pressure. This study examined whether automated office blood pressure values at lower limits were comparable to those of awake and mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure. A total of 552 patients were included in the study, involving 293 (53.1%) men and 259 (46.9%) women, with a mean age 55.0 ± 12.5, of whom 36% were treated for hypertension. Both systolic and diastolic automated office blood pressures exhibited lower values compared to awake ambulatory blood pressure among 254 individuals with systolic automated office blood pressure <130 mm Hg (119 ± 8 mm Hg vs 125 ± 11 mm Hg, P < .0001 and 75 ± 9 mm Hg vs 79 ± 9 mm Hg, P < .0001 for systolic and diastolic BPs, respectively). Furthermore, the comparison of systolic automated office blood pressure to the mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure levels also showed lower values (119 ± 8 vs 121 ± 10, P = .007), whereas the diastolic automated office blood pressure measurements were similar to 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure values. Our findings show that when automated office blood pressure readings express values <130/80 mm Hg in repeated office visits, further investigation should be performed only when masked hypertension is suspected; otherwise, higher automated office blood pressure values could be used for the diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension, especially in individuals with organ damage.

The optimal use of automated office blood pressure measurement in clinical practice.

This evidence-based article endorses the use of automated office blood pressure (AOBP). AOBP is the most favorable office blood pressure (BP) measuring technique as it provides accurate readings with 3-15 mm Hg lower values than the casual conventional office measurements with auscultatory or semi-automated oscillometric devices and relates closely to awake ABP readings. The AOBP technique seems to be superior to conventional office BP in predicting hypertension-mediated organ damage and appears to be equally reliable to awake ABP in the prediction of cardiovascular (CV) disease. AOBP readings should be obtained either unattended, with the patient alone in the examination room, or attended with the presence of personnel in the room but with no talking to the patient, although this recommendation is not frequently followed in routine clinical practice. To optimize office BP readings, the type of device, the rest period before AOBP measurements (preceding rest), and the time intervals between measurements were evaluated. As AOBP readings have the advantage of removing many confounding factors, the authors propose to perform measurements with a preceding rest in all patients at the initial visit; if AOBP readings remain <130 mm Hg in subsequent visits, measurements could be accepted, otherwise, if are higher, patients should be evaluated by out-of-office BP measurements.

Automated office blood pressure measurements obtained with and without preceding rest are associated with awake ambulatory blood pressure.

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement, attended or unattended, eliminates the white coat effect (WCE) showing a strong association with awake ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). This study examined the difference in AOBP readings, with and without 5 minutes of rest prior to three readings recorded at 1-min intervals. Cross-sectional data from 100 randomized selected hypertensives, 61 men and 39 women, with a mean age of 52.2 ± 10.8 years, 82% treated, were analyzed. The mean systolic AOBP values without preceding rest were 127.0 ± 18.2 mm Hg, and the mean systolic AOBP values with 5 minutes of preceding rest were 125.7 ± 17.9 mm Hg (P = .05). A significant order effect was observed for the mean systolic BP values when AOBP without 5 minutes of preceding rest was performed as the first measurement (130.0 ± 17.7 vs 126.5 ± 16.2, P = .008). When we used a target systolic AOBP ≥ 130 mm Hg, awake ABP yielded lower readings, while at a target systolic AOBP value of < 130 mm Hg higher awake ABP values were obtained. Our findings indicate that systolic AOBP can be initially checked without any preceding rest and if readings are normal can be accepted. Otherwise, when AOBP is ≥ 130 mm Hg, measurements should be rechecked with 5 minutes of rest.

Morning Surge and Peak Morning Ambulatory Blood Pressure Versus Automated Office Blood Pressure in Predicting Cardiovascular Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) has been recently shown to predict equally well to ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), conventional office blood pressure (OBP) and home blood pressure (HBP), cardiovascular (CV) events among hypertensives. AIM: To compare AOBP recording and ABP monitoring in order to evaluate morning blood pressure (BP) peak in predicting CV events and deaths in hypertensives. METHODS: We assessed 236 initially untreated hypertensives, examined between 2009 and 2013. The end points were CV and non-CV death and any CV event including myocardial infarction, evidence of coronary heart disease, heart failure hospitalization, severe arrhythmia, stroke, and symptomatic peripheral artery disease. We fitted proportional hazards models using the different modalities as predictors and evaluated their predictive performance using two metrics: the Akaike's Information Criterion, and Harrell's C-index. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 7 years, 23 subjects (39% women) had at least one CV event. In Cox regression models, systolic conventional OBP, AOBP and peak morning BP were predictive of CV events (p < 0.05). The Akaike Information Criterion showed smaller values for AOBP than peak morning BP, indicating a better performance in predicting CV events (227.2736 and 238.7413, respectively). The C-index was 0.6563 for systolic AOBP and 0.6243 for peak morning BP indicating a better predicting ability for AOBP. CONCLUSION: In initially untreated hypertensives, AOBP appears to be at least equally reliable to 24-h monitoring in the evaluation of morning BP peak in order to detect CV disease whereas the sleep-trough and preawakening morning BP surge did not indicate such an effect.

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.

Home, automated office, and conventional office blood pressure as predictors of cardiovascular risk.

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) has recently been shown to closely predict cardiovascular (CV) events in the elderly. Home blood pressure (HBP) has also been accepted as a valuable method in the prediction of CV disease. This study aimed to compare conventional office BP (OBP), HBP, and AOBP in order to evaluate their value in predicting CV events and deaths in hypertensives. We assessed 236 initially treatment naïve hypertensives, examined between 2009 and 2013. The end points were any CV and non-CV event including mortality, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, hospitalization for heart failure, severe arrhythmia, stroke, and intermittent claudication. We fitted proportional hazards models using the different modalities as predictors and evaluated their predictive performance using three metrics: time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curves, the Akaike's Information Criterion, and Harrell's C-index. After a mean follow-up of 7 years, 23 participants (39% women) had experienced ≥1 CV event. Conventional office systolic (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 mm Hg increase in BP, 1.028; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.009-1.048), automated office systolic (HR per 1 mm Hg increase in BP, 1.031; 95% CI, 1.008-1.054), and home systolic (HR, 1.025; 95% CI, 1.003-1.047) were predictive of CV events. All systolic BP measurements were predictive after adjustment for other CV risk factors (P < .05). The predictive performance of the different modalities was similar. Conventional OBP was significantly higher than AOBP and average HBP. AOBP predicts equally well to OBP and HBP CV events. It appears to be comparable to HBP in the assessment of CV risk, and therefore, its introduction into guidelines and clinical practice as the reference method for assessing BP in the office seems reasonable after verification of these findings by randomized trials.

Automated office blood pressure is associated with urine albumin excretion in hypertensive subjects.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the association between automated office blood pressure (AOBP) readings and urine albumin excretion (UAE), and to assess if this association is as close as that between 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and UAE. A strong association would suggest that AOBP may serve as an indicator of early renal impairment. METHODS: In a sample of 162 hypertensives, we compared AOBP with ABP measurements and their associations with UAE in two consecutive 24-h urine collections measured by an immunoturbidimetric assay. Microalbuminuria was defined as UAE of 30-300 mg/24 h. RESULTS: The age of the subjects was 53 ± 13 (mean ± s.d.) years. Twenty-two were microalbuminuric. In those, AOBP and 24-h ABP were higher than in the normoalbuminuric subjects: 152 ± 19 and 147 ± 20 vs. 138 ± 15 and 130 ± 11 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure (SBP), and 97 ± 15 and 92 ± 14 vs. 86 ± 10 and 82 ± 8 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (P < 0.001). Correlations between AOBP and 24-h ABP with log-transformed urine albumin were 0.30 (P < 0.001) and 0.43 (P < 0.001) for SBP and 0.27 (P < 0.001) and 0.33 (P < 0.001) for DBP. Adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, both AOBP and 24-h ABP were independently associated with urine albumin (P < 0.001 for both associations). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis showed a similar predictive ability for microalbuminuria for AOBP and for 24-h ABP (area under the curve: 0.819 (P < 0.001) for SBP, 0.836 (P < 0.001) for DBP vs. 0.830 (P < 0.001) for SBP and 0.845 (P < 0.001) for DBP). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, microalbuminuria correlated similarly with high-quality AOBP and ABP readings, further supporting the use of AOBP in the clinical setting.

Automated office versus home measurement of blood pressure in the assessment of morning hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality and accuracy of morning blood pressure (BP) readings as taken by automated office BP (AOBP) and morning home BP (mHBP) techniques using morning ambulatory BP (mABP) measurements as the gold standard. METHODS: A total of 139 individuals were included, 70 men and 69 women, mean age 53±13 years. The average AOBP readings as measured using a Microlife Watch BP office device taking triplicate automated simultaneous readings of both arms were compared with mHBP monitored on 6 routine days, using a validated automated electronic device. Both modalities were also compared with the ambulatory readings of the 3 h of waking (mABP3h). RESULTS: The AOBP values were slightly higher than the mABP3h (mean difference 8.2 mmHg, 95% limits of agreement, -18.8 to 35.2 mmHg for the systolic BP and mean difference 4.3 mmHg, 95% limits of agreement, -15.3 to 23.9 mmHg for the diastolic BP). Systolic and diastolic AOBP readings correlated with mABP3h (r=0.66, P=0.001 and r=0.64, P=0.001, respectively). Agreement was fair between AOBP and mHBP in the detection of morning hypertensive patients (agreement 70%, κ=0.32) as compared with AOBP and mABP3h (agreement 67%, κ=0.32) and mHBP and mABP3h (agreement 65%, κ=0.31). CONCLUSION: The AOBP technique could replace mHBP monitoring in the assessment of morning BP, as it provides comparable data in relation to the awake ambulatory BP. Given the simplicity of this method, it could be more readily applied in a larger number of individuals.

Why use automated office blood pressure measurements in clinical practice?

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement with the patient resting alone in a quiet examining room can eliminate the white-coat effect associated with conventional readings taken by manual sphygmomanometer. The key to reducing the white-coat response appears to be multiple blood pressure (BP) readings taken in a non-observer office setting, thus eliminating any interaction that could provoke an office-induced increase in BP. Furthermore, AOBP readings have shown a higher correlation with the mean awake ambulatory BP compared with BP readings recorded in routine clinical practice. Although there is a paucity of studies connecting AOBP with organ damage, AOBP values were recently found to be equally associated with left ventricular mass index as those of ambulatory BP. This concludes that in contrast to routine manual office BP, AOBP readings compare favourably with 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements in the appraisal of cardiac remodelling and, as such, could be complementary to ambulatory readings in a way similar to home BP measurements.

Automated office blood pressure and 24-h ambulatory measurements are equally associated with left ventricular mass index.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether automated office blood pressure (AOBP) readings are associated with left ventricular mass (LVM) index as closely as those of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and also to confirm that the values of the two methods are comparable in the appraisal of blood pressure in a European population referred for suspected hypertension. METHODS: In a sample of 90 individuals with office hypertension, we compared AOBP to awake systolic ABP measurements (ABPM) values and their associations with LVM indices, expressed as LVM divided by body surface area (LVMI(BSA)) and by height(2.7) (LVMI(H)). RESULTS: Mean awake systolic ABP was 136 ± 16 mm Hg and mean systolic AOBP was 140 ± 15 mm Hg (P < 0.002). Mean awake diastolic ABP was 87 ± 11 mm Hg and mean diastolic AOBP was 88 ± 12 mm Hg (P = 0.08). AOBP readings were as closely associated with LVMI(BSA) (r = 0.37) as were those of awake systolic blood pressure (SBP) (r = 0.37). The correlation between LVMI(H) and both mean awake systolic ABP and mean systolic AOBP was r = 0.37 (P < 0.001) and r = 0.34 (P = 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality AOBP readings and ABP measurements correlate equally well with LVM indices, further supporting the use of AOBP in the clinical setting. Moreover, readings from both techniques are comparable in the assessment of blood pressure.