Availability, Cost, and Consumer Ratings of Popular Nonvalidated vs Validated Blood Pressure-Measuring Devices Sold Online in 10 Countries.

This study examines the availability, cost, and consumer ratings of blood pressure­measuring devices relative to validation status across 10 countries.

The cost-effectiveness of a two-step blood pressure screening programme in a dental health-care setting.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the largest contributors to the disease burden and a major economic challenge for health-care systems. Early detection of persons with high blood pressure can be achieved through screening and has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an opportunistic hypertension screening programme in a dental-care facility for individuals aged 40-75 in comparison to care as usual (the no-screening baseline scenario). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out from the payer and societal perspectives, and the short-term (from screening until diagnosis has been established) cost per identified case of hypertension and long-term (20 years) cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were reported. Data on the short-term cost were based on a real-world screening programme in which 2025 healthy individuals were screened for hypertension. Data on the long-term cost were based on the short-term outcomes combined with modelling in a Markov cohort model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: The short-term analysis showed an additional cost of 4,800 SEK (€470) per identified case of hypertension from the payer perspective and from the societal perspective 12,800 SEK (€1,240). The long-term analysis showed a payer cost per QALY of 2.2 million SEK (€210,000) and from the societal perspective 2.8 million SEK per QALY (€270,000). CONCLUSION: The long-term model results showed that the screening model is unlikely to be cost-effective in a country with a well-developed health-care system and a relatively low prevalence of hypertension.

SAFE@HOME: Cost analysis of a new care pathway including a digital health platform for women at increased risk of preeclampsia.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost analysis of the use of a new care pathway with a digital health platform for blood pressure telemonitoring for women at risk of preeclampsia. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cost analysis of a case-control study with women with chronic hypertension, history of preeclampsia, maternal cardiac or kidney disease at intake of pregnancy. Antenatal care with a reduced visit schedule and a digital health platform (SAFE@HOME, n = 97) was compared to a retrospective control group (n = 133) with usual care without self-monitoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs per pregnancy (€) of healthcare consumption of antenatal clinic visits, ultrasound assessments, antenatal admissions, laboratory and other diagnostic tests, and societal costs such as traveling and work absence. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and perinatal outcomes were similar between both groups. A significant reduction of antenatal visits, ultrasounds and hypertension-related admissions was associated with use of the digital platform. In the SAFE@HOME group, costs of antenatal care, including the costs of the digital platform, were 19.7% lower compared to the control group (median €3616 [IQR 3071 - 5329] vs €4504 [IQR 3515-6923], p = 0.001). Total costs per pregnancy, including societal costs, were also reduced (€7485 [IQR 6338-10,173] vs €9150, [IQR 7546-12,286] p < 0.001). Each euro invested in the platform saved on average €8 of antenatal care resources. CONCLUSION: The use of a digital platform for blood pressure and symptom monitoring in antenatal care for high-risk women is associated with lower costs compared to conventional care, while observed maternal and neonatal outcomes are similar.

Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure (HOME BP) using a digital intervention in poorly controlled hypertension: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The HOME BP (Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure) trial aimed to test a digital intervention for hypertension management in primary care by combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management. DESIGN: Unmasked randomised controlled trial with automated ascertainment of primary endpoint. SETTING: 76 general practices in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 622 people with treated but poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg) and access to the internet. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised by using a minimisation algorithm to self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital intervention (305 participants) or usual care (routine hypertension care, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner; 317 participants). The digital intervention provided feedback of blood pressure results to patients and professionals with optional lifestyle advice and motivational support. Target blood pressure for hypertension, diabetes, and people aged 80 or older followed UK national guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure (mean of second and third readings) after one year, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target, age, and practice, with multiple imputation for missing values. RESULTS: After one year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean blood pressure dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic blood pressure of -3.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval -6.1 to -0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic blood pressure of -0.5 mm Hg (-1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Results were comparable in the complete case analysis and adverse effects were similar between groups. Within trial costs showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £11 ($15, €12; 95% confidence interval £6 to £29) per mm Hg reduction. CONCLUSIONS: The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored blood pressure led to better control of systolic blood pressure after one year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13790648.

Out-of-Pocket Payment for Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Among Commercially Insured in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines increasingly recommended ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for hypertension diagnosis and management. Yet, ABPM is used infrequently in the United States, possibly because of low insurance coverage and high patient costs. We sought to analyze out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) for ABPM among privately insured patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using IBM® MarketScan® commercial claims of beneficiaries aged ≥18 years receiving ABPM from January 2012 to December 2018. The date of first ABPM claim (Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes 93784, 93786, 93788, or 93790) was considered the index date. Patients with 12 months of continuous enrollment preindex and 30-day postindex were included. Per beneficiary OPP was calculated by aggregating all ABPM-related OPPs within the 30-day postindex window (ABPM episode). RESULTS: Of 22,317 beneficiaries receiving ABPM, 62% had $0 OPP and 38% had OPP >$0. Among the latter, median OPP per beneficiary for an ABPM episode was $23 (interquartile range [IQR], $14, $32), driven primarily by full ABPM claims (median, $22; IQR, $14, $24). Among individual components, scan analysis and report claims (median, $25; IQR, $13, $49) had the greatest OPP. The median OPP per ABPM episode did not change substantively from 2012 through 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Among commercially insured in the United States, nearly 4-in-10 have an OPP for ABPM. Though most OPPs are relatively modest, some patients incur substantial OPP. Our findings highlight the need for policymakers to ensure adequate ABPM coverage in the commercial insurance marketplace.

Cardiovascular Events and Costs With Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring and Pharmacist Management for Uncontrolled Hypertension.

Uncontrolled hypertension is a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease. A cluster-randomized trial in 16 primary care clinics showed that 12 months of home blood pressure telemonitoring and pharmacist management lowered blood pressure more than usual care (UC) for 24 months. We report cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalized heart failure, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death) and costs over 5 years of follow-up. In the telemonitoring intervention (TI group, n=228), there were 15 cardiovascular events (5 myocardial infarction, 4 stroke, 5 heart failure, 1 cardiovascular death) among 10 patients. In UC group (n=222), there were 26 events (11 myocardial infarction, 12 stroke, 3 heart failure) among 19 patients. The cardiovascular composite end point incidence was 4.4% in the TI group versus 8.6% in the UC group (odds ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.21-1.13], P=0.09). Including 2 coronary revascularizations in the TI group and 10 in the UC group, the secondary cardiovascular composite end point incidence was 5.3% in the TI group versus 10.4% in the UC group (odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.22-1.08], P=0.08). Microsimulation modeling showed the difference in events far exceeded predictions based on observed blood pressure. Intervention costs (in 2017 US dollars) were $1511 per patient. Over 5 years, estimated event costs were $758 000 in the TI group and $1 538 000 in the UC group for a return on investment of 126% and a net cost savings of about $1900 per patient. Telemonitoring with pharmacist management lowered blood pressure and may have reduced costs by avoiding cardiovascular events over 5 years. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00781365.

CardioMEMSTM System in the Daily Management of Heart Failure: Review of Current Data and Technique of Implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) leads to significant morbidity and mortality and imposes a large economic burden. Although there have been several advances in HF monitoring and management, HF-rehospitalization remains a significant problem. Remote monitoring of HF to detect early signs of decompensation has emerged in past years as an option to prevent or reduce the incidence of HF rehospitalization. The CardioMEMSTM HF system is a wireless pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring system that detects changes in PA pressure and transmits data to the healthcare provider. Since changes in PA pressure happen early in the course of HF decompensation, the CardioMEMSTM system allows the provider to institute timely intensification of HF therapies to alter the course. In trial and registry data, the use of the CardioMEMSTM HF system has been associated with reduction in HF hospitalization, improvement in quality of life, symptoms, and physical activity. AREAS COVERED: This review will focus on the available data supporting its utilization in patients with HF. EXPERT OPINION: CardioMEMSTM is relatively safe and cost-effective, reduces heart failure hospitalization rates, and fits into intermediate to high-value medical care.

Patient perceptions of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring testing, tolerability, accessibility, and expense.

Use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is strongly endorsed by contemporary hypertension guidelines. The objective of this study was to assess patient perceptions of ambulatory blood pressure testing, tolerability, accessibility, and expense. A convenience sample of 50, consenting patients undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic in Edmonton, Canada was studied. A 16-item structured questionnaire was administered in person or electronically. Questions regarding the tolerability of ambulatory monitoring were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale and wait times, expenditures, and willingness to pay were evaluated by direct questioning. Mean age was 53.1 ± 15.4 years, 32 (64%) were female, and 23 (46%) were employed. Mean 24-hour ambulatory BP was 134 ± 12/79 ± 8 mmHg. Ambulatory monitoring caused discomfort in 40 (80%) patients and disturbed sleep in 39 (78%). Forty-one (82%) patients perceived that the home (vs pharmacy, primary care clinic, and speciality care clinic) would be the easiest venue to access future testing. On average, patients waited 27.3 ± 23.7 days for testing; they felt that a wait time of 21.3 ± 12.3 days was appropriate. Mean time taken off work was 8.6 ± 10.8 hours. Twelve (24%) patients indicated that they would be willing to pay out-of-pocket to undergo testing sooner, at a mean expenditure of $120 ± 69. Nineteen (62%) patients were willing to buy a monitor and felt that a mean purchase cost of $125 ± 89 was appropriate. These findings extend current knowledge of patient perceptions of ambulatory monitoring and may help to refine and optimize future delivery of this essential test.

Medicare reimbursement policy for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: A qualitative analysis of public comments to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is considered the best means of diagnosing hypertension. However, it is rarely used and is reimbursed only under narrow conditions. We sought to gain insight into the perceived value of ABPM among stakeholders who responded to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) request for comments to inform the first revision of ABPM reimbursement policy in over 15 years. We found that most comments were classifiable in two main themes, current coverage and future coverage. Individuals and institutions representing multiple disciplines and specialties were highly supportive of expanding the current CMS coverage of ABPM, including for a wide range of clinical indications and populations. It is clear from the comments reviewed that there is wide support for expanding CMS coverage for ABPM. Broad support for a change in ABPM reimbursement policy may lead to changes in the way this technology is used in the United States.

HOspital care versus TELemonitoring in high-risk pregnancy (HOTEL): study protocol for a multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women faced with complications of pregnancy often require long-term hospital admission for maternal and/or fetal monitoring. Antenatal admissions cause a burden to patients as well as hospital resources and costs. A telemonitoring platform connected to wireless cardiotocography (CTG) and automated blood pressure (BP) devices can be used for telemonitoring in pregnancy. Home telemonitoring might improve autonomy and reduce admissions and thus costs. The aim of this study is to compare the effects on patient safety, satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of hospital care versus telemonitoring (HOTEL) as an obstetric care strategy in high-risk pregnancies requiring daily monitoring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HOTEL trial is an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial with a non-inferiority design. Eligible pregnant women are >26+0 weeks of singleton gestation requiring monitoring because of pre-eclampsia (hypertension with proteinuria), fetal growth restriction, preterm rupture of membranes without contractions, recurrent reduced fetal movements or an intrauterine fetal death in a previous pregnancy.Randomisation takes place between traditional hospitalisation (planned n=208) versus telemonitoring (planned n=208) until delivery. Telemonitoring at home is facilitated with Sense4Baby CTG devices, Microlife BP monitor and daily telephone calls with an obstetric healthcare professional as well as weekly hospital visits.Primary outcome is a composite of adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal mortality, 5 min Apgar <7 or arterial cord blood pH <7.05, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, thromboembolic event), neonatal intensive care admission and caesarean section rate. Patient satisfaction and preference of care will be assessed using validated questionnaires. We will perform an economic analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention to treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Center and the boards of all six participating centres. Trial results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6076.

Diagnosis and management of hypertension: around-the-clock ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is substantially more effective and less costly than daytime office blood pressure measurements.

The cost-effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) versus traditional office BP measurement (OBPM) for the diagnosis and management of hypertension has been evaluated only by few studies and based solely on the reduction of medical care expenses through avoiding treatment of isolated-office hypertension. Data from the 21963 participants in the Hygia Project, a multicenter outcomes study that incorporates into routine primary care periodic, at least yearly, 48 h ABPM evaluation, were utilized to assess the cost-effectiveness - relative to vascular pathology expenditures countrywide in Spain - of ABPM versus OBPM. The actual reported Spanish healthcare expenditure for vascular pathology in 2015 - aggregate costs of medical examinations, outpatient and inpatient care, therapeutic interventions, plus non-healthcare services (productivity losses due to morbidity/mortality and informal family/friends-provided care) - was used to compare yearly costs when diagnostic and treatment decisions for hypertension are based on the OBPM versus the ABPM-model. Our economic analysis is based on the more realistic and feasible approach of restricting ABPM solely to high-risk individuals of age ≥60 years and/or with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and/or previous cardiovascular event, who in the Hygia Project accounted for >90% of all documented events. The projected net benefit countrywide in favor of the proposed ABPM-model is ~5294M€/year, i.e., 360.33€/year (95%CI [347.52-374.85]) per ABPM-evaluated person. This highly conservative economic analysis indicates ABPM is a much more cost-effective strategy than repeated OBPM not only for accurate diagnosis and management of true hypertension but marked reduction of expenditures on elevated BP-associated vascular pathology.

Home blood-pressure monitoring in a hypertensive pregnant population: cost-minimization study.

OBJECTIVE: Traditional blood-pressure monitoring in hypertensive pregnant women requires frequent visits to the maternity outpatient services. Home blood-pressure monitoring (HBPM) could offer a cost-saving alternative that is acceptable to patients. The aim of this study was to undertake a health economic analysis of HBPM compared with traditional monitoring in hypertensive pregnant women. METHODS: This was a cost-minimization study of hypertensive pregnant women who had HBPM with or without the adjunct of a smartphone application (App), via a specially designed pathway, and a control group managed according to the local protocol of regular hospital visits for blood-pressure monitoring. Outcome measures were the number of outpatient visits, inpatient bed stays and investigations performed. Maternal, fetal and neonatal adverse outcomes were also recorded. Health economic analysis was performed using direct cost comparison of the study dataset and process scenario modeling. RESULTS: The HBPM group included 108 women, of whom 29 recorded their results on the smartphone App and 79 in their notes. The control group comprised 58 patients. There were significantly more women with chronic hypertension in the HBPM group than in the control group (49.1% vs 25.9%, P = 0.004). The HBPM group had significantly longer duration of monitoring (9 weeks vs 5 weeks, P = 0.004) and started monitoring at an earlier gestational age (30.0 weeks vs 33.6 weeks, P = 0.001) compared with the control group. Despite these differences, the mean saving per week for each patient using HBPM compared with traditional monitoring was £200.69, while for each HBPM patient using the smartphone App, the weekly saving was £286.53 compared with the control group. The process modeling method predicted weekly savings of between £98.32 and £245.80 per patient using HBPM compared with traditional monitoring. CONCLUSION: HBPM in hypertensive pregnancy appears to be cost saving compared with traditional monitoring, without compromising maternal, fetal or neonatal safety. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Clinic, Home, or Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement for Hypertension Diagnosis in US Adults.

Previous cost-effectiveness models found ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) to be a favorable strategy to diagnose hypertension; however, they mostly focused on older adults with a positive clinic blood pressure (BP) screen. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 3 methods of BP measurement for hypertension diagnosis in primary care settings among 14 age- and sex-stratified hypothetical cohorts (adults ≥21 years of age), accounting for the possibility of both false-positive (white-coat hypertension) and false-negative (masked hypertension) clinic measurements. We compared quality-adjusted life-years and lifetime costs ($US 2017 from the US healthcare perspective) associated with clinic BP measurement, home BP monitoring, and ABPM under 2 scenarios: positive and negative initial screen. Model parameters were obtained from published literature, publicly available data sources, and expert input. In the screen-positive scenario, ABPM was the dominant strategy among all age and sex groups. Compared with clinic BP measurement, ABPM was associated with cost-savings ranging from $77 (women 80 years of age) to $5013 (women 21 years of age). In the screen-negative scenario, ABPM was the dominant strategy in all men and women <80 years of age with cost-savings ranging from $128 (women 70 years of age) to $2794 (women 21 years of age). Sensitivity analyses showed that results were sensitive to test specificity and antihypertensive medication costs. ABPM is recommended as the diagnostic strategy of choice for most adults in primary care settings regardless of initial screening results.

Home blood pressure monitoring in the 21st century.

Home blood pressure monitoring provides multiple measurements in the usual environment of each individual, allows the detection of intermediate hypertension phenotypes (white-coat and masked hypertension), and appears to have superior prognostic value compared to the conventional office blood pressure measurements. Accumulating evidence suggests that home blood pressure monitoring improves long-term hypertension control rates. Moreover, it is widely available, relatively inexpensive, and well accepted by patients. Thus, current guidelines recommend home blood pressure monitoring as an essential method for the evaluation of almost all untreated and treated patients with suspected or treated hypertension. Validated automated upper-arm cuff devices with automated storage and averaging of readings should be used. The home blood pressure monitoring schedule for 4 to 7 days with exclusion of the first day (12-24 readings) should be averaged to provide values for decision making.

Patient Barriers and Facilitators to Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that patients with newly elevated office blood pressure undergo ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) to rule-out white coat hypertension before being diagnosed with hypertension. We explored patients' perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to undergoing ABPM or HBPM. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with twenty English- and Spanish-speaking individuals from underserved communities in New York City. Two researchers analyzed transcripts using a conventional content analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in ABPM and HBPM. RESULTS: Participants described favorable attitudes toward testing including readily understanding white coat hypertension, agreeing with the rationale for out-of-office testing, and believing that testing would benefit patients. Regarding ABPM, participants expressed concerns over the representativeness of the day the test was performed and the intrusiveness of the frequent readings. Regarding HBPM, participants expressed concerns over the validity of the monitoring method and the reliability of home blood pressure devices. For both tests, participants noted that out-of-pocket costs may deter patient participation and felt that patients would require detailed information about the test itself before deciding to participate. Participants overwhelmingly believed that out-of-office testing benefits outweighed testing barriers, were confident that they could successfully complete either testing if recommended by their provider, and described the rationale for their testing preference. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified dominant barriers and facilitators to ABPM and HBPM testing, articulated testing preferences, and believed that they could successfully complete out-of-office testing if recommended by their provider.

Is home blood-pressure monitoring in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy consistent with clinic recordings?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between home blood-pressure monitoring (HBPM) and blood-pressure measurements in a clinic setting, in a cohort of pregnant women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). METHODS: This was a cohort study of 147 pregnant women with HDP conducted at St George's Hospital, University of London, London, UK, between 2016 and 2017. Inclusion criteria were chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension or high risk of developing pre-eclampsia, no significant proteinuria and no hematological or biochemical abnormalities. Each included patient was prescribed a personalized schedule of hospital visits and blood-pressure measurements, according to their individual risk as per UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. The blood-pressure measurement at the clinic and the HBPM reading obtained closest to that hospital visit were paired for analysis. Only one pair of measurements was used per patient. Differences between home and clinic blood-pressure measurements were tested using the Wilcoxon signed rank test or paired t-test, and were also assessed visually using Bland-Altman plots. Comparison of the binary outcomes was performed using McNemar's chi-square test. Subgroup analysis was performed in the following gestational-age windows: < 14 weeks, 15-22 weeks, 23-32 weeks and 33-42 weeks' gestation. RESULTS: A total of 294 blood-pressure measurements from 147 women were included in the analysis. Median systolic HBPM measurements were significantly lower than clinic measurements (132.0 (interquartile range (IQR), 123.0-140.0) mmHg vs 138.0 (IQR, 132.0-146.5) mmHg; P < 0.001). When stratified according to gestational age, systolic blood-pressure measurements obtained at home were significantly lower than those at clinic in all gestational-age periods except 23-32 weeks' gestation (P = 0.057). Median diastolic blood-pressure measurements at home were also significantly lower than those at clinic (85.0 (IQR, 77.0-90.0) mmHg vs 89.0 (IQR, 82.0-94.0) mmHg; P < 0.001). When stratified according to gestational age, diastolic HBPM measurements were significantly lower in the periods 5-14 weeks (P < 0.001), 15-22 weeks (P = 0.008) and 33-42 weeks (P < 0.001), compared with clinic measurements. The incidence of clinically significant systolic and diastolic hypertension based on clinic blood-pressure measurements was four to five times higher than that based on HBPM measurements (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that, in women with HDP, blood pressure measured at home is lower than that measured in a clinic setting. This is consistent with observations in non-pregnant adults, in whom home and ambulatory monitoring of hypertensive patients is recommended. As such, HBPM has the potential to reduce the number of false-positive diagnoses of severe hypertension and unnecessary medical interventions in women with HDP. This must be carefully weighed against the risk of missing true-positive diagnoses. Prospective studies investigating the use of HBPM in pregnant women are urgently needed to determine the relevant blood-pressure thresholds for HBPM, and interval and frequency of monitoring. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Knowledge, availability, and use of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring in primary care in Spain: the MAMPA study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree of knowledge and management of automated devices for office blood pressure measurement (AD), home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in primary care in Spain. METHODS: Online self-administered survey sent between May 2016 and February 2017 to 2221 primary-care physicians working across Spain. Clinicians were mostly identified through national primary-care scientific societies (20% overall response rate). RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 47.7 years, 55% were women, and 54% reported at least 20 years of primary-care practice. Among them, 47.5% considered ABPM the best diagnostic method for hypertension, 23% chose HBPM, and 7.1% chose office blood pressure. Also, 78.2% had AD available at their centers and 49.0% had ABPM, with slight urban/rural differences. HBPM was recommended in daily practice for hypertension diagnosis by 67% of participants, whereas 30% recommended ABPM. Cost to the patients was the main reason for not using HBPM (42.7%) as was lack of accessibility for not using ABPM (69.8%). Lack of specific training was also reported as an important reason in both cases. CONCLUSION: Even in the possibly best primary care scenario presented by highly motivated physicians (respondents to a voluntary anonymous survey), enormous gaps were observed between current guidelines' recommendations on ABPM and HBPM use for confirming hypertension and the modest degree of knowledge, availability, and use of these technologies.

A Literature Review on Current and Proposed Technologies of Noninvasive Blood Pressure Measurement.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive continuous blood pressure (BP) measurement has become an evolving topic in the field of remote healthcare. The classical noninvasive BP measurement techniques provide spontaneous values of systolic and diastolic BP. On the other hand, intrusive type BP measurement techniques provide continuous values of systolic and diastolic BP. However, these techniques are very painful, cannot be used for long-term monitoring, and are obtainable only in an intensive care unit environment. With the advancement of the remote healthcare industry, there is a growing demand for noninvasive continuous BP monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to present a compact literature review on the various prospective approaches of noninvasive continuous BP measurement techniques. MATERIALS & METHODS: The most contemporary and advanced technologies on noninvasive continuous BP measurement are Tactile Sensing, Vascular Unloading Technique, Pulse Transit Time, Photoplethysmography, Ultrasound-based BP measurement, BP measurement from image processing, etc. The literature search based on these technologies was conducted in EMBASE, Web of Science, IEEE, PubMed, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. In this study, each selected approach was evaluated and characterized using the following criteria: (1) accuracy; (2) cost; (3) portability; (4) comfort and convenience of use; (5) clinical health and safety; and (6) ability to integrate with the remote healthcare system. RESULTS: A detailed technical analysis was done to determine the advantages and limitations of each technique in the context of the abovementioned parameters. It was observed that BP measurement, using photoplethysmography (using camera or sensor or both), perhaps was the most promising technique among all. CONCLUSION: The study emphasized the fact that the noninvasive, continuous BP measurement technique needs to evolve further to make it reliable, accurate, and user-friendly. Lastly, a possible direction toward a more reliable and comfortable noninvasive continuous BP measurement technique has been discussed.

Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure in the Clinic for the Diagnosis of Hypertension in Primary Care: An Economic Evaluation.

Clinical guidelines in the United States and United Kingdom recommend that individuals with suspected hypertension should have ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring to confirm the diagnosis. This approach reduces misdiagnosis because of white coat hypertension but will not identify people with masked hypertension who may benefit from treatment. The Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm predicts masked and white coat hypertension based on patient characteristics and clinic BP, improving the accuracy of diagnosis while limiting subsequent ambulatory BP monitoring. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using this tool in diagnosing hypertension in primary care. A Markov cost-utility cohort model was developed to compare diagnostic strategies: the PROOF-BP approach, including those with clinic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg who receive ambulatory BP monitoring as guided by the algorithm, compared with current standard diagnostic strategies including those with clinic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg combined with further monitoring (ambulatory BP monitoring as reference, clinic, and home monitoring also assessed). The model adopted a lifetime horizon with a 3-month time cycle, taking a UK Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective. The PROOF-BP algorithm was cost-effective in screening all patients with clinic BP ≥130/80 mm Hg compared with current strategies that only screen those with clinic BP ≥140/90 mm Hg, provided healthcare providers were willing to pay up to £20 000 ($26 000)/quality-adjusted life year gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case findings. The PROOF-BP algorithm seems to be cost-effective compared with the conventional BP diagnostic options in primary care. Its use in clinical practice is likely to lead to reduced cardiovascular disease, death, and disability.