Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Blood pressure response to close or loose contact between physician and patient during attended office blood pressure measurement.
Seidlerová, Jitka; Filipovský, Jan; Kordíková, Veronika; Gelzinský, Július; Mares, Stepán; Mayer, Otto.
  • Seidlerová J; Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
  • Filipovský J; Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
  • Kordíková V; Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
  • Gelzinský J; Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
  • Mares S; Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
  • Mayer O; Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Blood Press ; 31(1): 194-199, 2022 12.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35903890
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Compared to unattended office blood pressure (uOBP), attended office blood pressure (aOBP) is higher. It is not known, however, to what extent distance between physician and patient influences blood pressure (BP) values. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Participants were stable hypertensive patients, followed in the university hospital-based out-patient center. During a session, automated office BP was measured three times after a pre-set five-minute pause, using the Omron 907 device; both aOBP and uOBP were done, in a random order. Simultaneously, beat-to-beat BP measurement was performed using the Finapress device. During aOBP, some participants were in close contact with the physician while others were in loose contact where the doctor was sitting in the room about 2.5 m apart. One year later, the second session with the same protocol was organized, but the close and loose contact were interchanged. The data were analyzed using a paired t-test.

RESULTS:

Complete data were collected in 32 patients, baseline uOBP was 122.8 ± 14.8/69.5 ± 11.7 mmHg. Systolic and diastolic aOBP with close contact was higher by 4.6 ± 6.9 and 1.9 ± 3.4 mmHg (p < 0.0007 and 0.0039, respectively), while aOBP with loose contact was not different from uOBP. Beat-to-beat BP increased during aOBP by 6.5 ± 8.5/3.3 ± 4.8 mmHg. The increase persisted during all the three aOBP measurements (p < 0.0001 for all systolic and diastolic BP values); the results were similar for close and loose contact. The peak increase during uOBP was of similar magnitude as during aOBP but it lasted shorter it reached the significance level of p < 0.0001 only during the first uOBP measurement.

CONCLUSIONS:

Compared to uOBP, aOBP values were higher with close, but not with loose contact between physician and patient. These differences were, however, not detected by beat-to-beat BP measurement.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Médicos / Soplos Sistólicos / Hipertensión Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Médicos / Soplos Sistólicos / Hipertensión Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article