Effects of Cuff Size on the Accuracy of Blood Pressure Readings: The Cuff(SZ) Randomized Crossover Trial

One size does not fit all: universal cuff overestimates oscillometric blood pressure in persons with large arm circumference

OBJECTIVE

Some brachial cuffs for oscillometric blood pressure (BP) measurement are claimed to cover a wide range of upper-arm circumferences; however, their validation is rarely conducted. Our aim was to compare oscillometric BP measurements obtained with a universal cuff with those obtained with an appropriately sized cuff.

METHODS

We utilised the Microlife B6 Connect monitor, conducting oscillometric BP measurements in a random sequence with both a universal cuff (recommended for arm circumferences from 22 to 42 cm) and an appropriately sized cuff (medium for circumference 22-32 cm and large for 32-42 cm). We included 91 individuals with an arm circumference of 22-32 cm and 64 individuals with an arm circumference of 32-42 cm.

RESULTS

For arm circumferences > 32 cm, systolic and diastolic BP measured with the universal cuff was higher than that measured with the large cuff (systolic 6.4 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI]). 3.9-8.8, diastolic 2.4 mmHg, 95%CI, 1.2-3.7, p < 0.001 for both). Overestimation of BP with the universal cuff was statistically significant after correcting for the sequence of measurements. No statistical difference was found between the universal cuff and medium cuff for circumferences in the 22-32 cm range. The bladder size in the universal cuff matched the dimensions of the medium-sized cuff; however, the cuff was larger.

CONCLUSION

Overestimation of BP measured with a universal cuff in persons with large arm circumferences is clinically important. It poses the risk of unnecessary initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medication in persons using the universal cuff.

What Constitutes Adequate Control of High Blood Pressure? Current Considerations

An estimated 45% of adult Americans currently have high blood pressure (HBP). Effective blood pressure (BP) control is essential for preventing major adverse events from cardiovascular and other vascular-related diseases, such as chronic kidney disease, stroke and dementia. A large and growing number of medical professional societies, health care organizations, and governmental agencies have now endorsed a clinical practice guideline-based target for adequate control of HBP to a systolic BP of less than 130 mm Hg. However, adequate BP control to this goal has been recently estimated to be as low as 30%. The first and most important steps to guide effective BP control include accurate, standardized BP measurement and formal assessment of overall atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. In addition to appropriate pharmacologic treatment, optimal BP management must also include multifaceted guideline-directed lifestyle modifications. High-quality evidence now supports effective uniform HBP control that is consistently achievable for most of people from diverse backgrounds. This can be accomplished through identification and prioritization of social determinants of health enabled by shared decision making that is delivered via team-based care. Such integrated approaches can have a substantial impact for simultaneously reducing several major modifiable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors. Hence, moving the "Big Needle" of improved overall cardiovascular, kidney, and brain health of the US population must no longer be solely relegated to primary care and will require a major and coordinated reprioritization of capital and evidence-based human resource allocations by all health care stakeholder organizations.

Measures of nutrition status and health for weight-inclusive patient care: A narrative review

In healthcare, weight is often equated to and used as a marker for health. In examining nutrition and health status, there are many more effective markers independent of weight. In this article, we review practical and emerging clinical applications of technologies and tools used to collect non-weight-related data in nutrition assessment, monitoring, and evaluation in the outpatient setting. The aim is to provide clinicians with new ideas about various types of data to evaluate and track in nutrition care.

Validation of two automatic sphygmomanometers according to the modified International Standardization Organization 81060-2:2018 protocol in adults with a mid-upper arm circumference of 22 centimeters or less

OBJECTIVE

A recent International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Task Group report calls for research to investingate potential special populations in validation studies of automated blood pressure (BP) devices. Accordingly, we aimed to determine the accuracy of two previously validated BP monitors passed in a general population when measured in adults with a mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≤ 22 cm.

METHODS

Test device A was the OMRON HEM 7121 equipped with the HEM CS24 cuff designed for an arm circumference of 17-22 cm. Test device B was the YuWell YE660Е with the YuWell '360°' cuff (18-36 cm). Data from 37 participants aged 20.14 ± 2.23 (18-28) years were analyzed according to criterion 1 of ISO Standard 81060-2 : 2018.

RESULTS

According to criterion 1, the mean ± SD of the BP differences for the device A was -7.81 ± 5.20/-10.66 ± 5.48 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) and for the device B was -8.00 ± 6.30/-16.11 ± 5.15 mmHg (systolic/diastolic), respectively. This means that neither device met the requirements.

CONCLUSION

Since devices A and B, which had passed in a general population study, failed in adults aged 18-28 years with an MUAC ≤ 22 cm, such individuals might be considered as new special population for validation studies.

Inter-observer reliability and anatomical landmarks for arm circumference to determine cuff size for blood pressure measurement

Accurate arm circumference (AC) measurement is required for accurate blood pressure (BP) readings. Standards stipulate measuring arm circumference at the midpoint between the acromion process (AP) and the olecranon process. However, which part of the AP to use is not stipulated. Furthermore, BP is measured sitting but arm circumference is measured standing. We sought to understand how landmarking during AC measurement and body position affect cuff size selection. Two variations in measurement procedure were studied. First, AC was measured at the top of the acromion (TOA) and compared to the spine of the acromion (SOA). Second, standing versus seated measurements using each landmark were compared. AC was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm at the mid-point of the upper arm by two independent observers, blinded from each other's measurements. In 51 participants, the mean (±SD) mid-AC measurement using the anchoring landmarks TOA and SOA in the standing position were 32.4 cm (±6.18) and 32.1 cm (±6.07), respectively (mean difference of 0.3 cm). In the seated position, mean arm circumference was 32.2 (±6.10) using TOA and 31.1 (±6.03) using SOA (mean difference 1.1 cm). Kappa agreement for cuff selection in the standing position between TOA and SOA was 0.94 (p < 0.001). The landmark on the acromion process can change the cuff selection in a small percentage of cases. The overall impact of this landmark selection is small. However, standardizing landmark selection and body position for AC measurement could further reduce variability in cuff size selection during BP measurement and validation studies.

A Direct Assessment of Noninvasive Continuous Blood Pressure Monitoring in the Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit

INTRODUCTION

Noninvasive continuous blood pressure monitoring has the potential to improve patient treatment in the hospital setting. Such noninvasive devices can be applied earlier in the treatment process to empower nurses and clinicians to react more quickly to patient deterioration with the added benefit of eliminating the risks associated with invasive monitoring. However, emerging technologies must be capable of reproducing current clinical measures for medical decision making.

METHODS

This study aimed to determine the usability and willingness of nurses to implement a noninvasive continuous blood pressure monitoring device. The secondary aim directly compared the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure values recorded by the device (VitalStream; CareTaker Medical LLC, Charlottesville, VA) with the "gold standard" brachial cuff and arterial line measures recorded in the emergency department and intensive care unit settings.

RESULTS

VitalStream was similarly received by nurses in the emergency department and intensive care setting, but ultimately had greater promotion from emergency nurses. Despite some statistical similarity between measurement methodologies, all direct comparisons were found to not meet the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation 2008 and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation / European Society of Hypertension / International Organization for Standardization 2019 consensus statement criteria for acceptable blood pressure measure differences between the VitalStream and "gold standard" clinical measures. In all instances, the standard deviation of the Bland-Altman bias exceeded 8 mm Hg with less than 85% of paired differences falling within 10 mm Hg of the "gold standard."

DISCUSSION

Taken together, the tested device requires additional postprocessing for medical decision making in trauma or emergent care.

Diagnosis and management of resistant hypertension

Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure that remains above the therapeutic goal despite concurrent use of at least three antihypertensive agents of different classes, including a diuretic, with all agents administered at maximum or maximally tolerated doses. Resistant hypertension is also diagnosed if blood pressure control requires four or more antihypertensive drugs. Assessment requires the exclusion of apparent treatment resistant hypertension, which is most often the result of non-adherence to treatment. Resistant hypertension is associated with major cardiovascular events in the short and long term, including heart failure, ischemic heart disease, stroke, and renal failure. Guidelines from several professional organizations recommend lifestyle modification and antihypertensive drugs. Medications typically include an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, a calcium channel blocker, and a long acting thiazide-type/like diuretic; if a fourth drug is needed, evidence supports addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. After a long pause since 2007 when the last antihypertensive class was approved, several novel agents are now under active development. Some of these may provide potent blood pressure lowering in broad groups of patients, such as aldosterone synthase inhibitors and dual endothelin receptor antagonists, whereas others may provide benefit by allowing treatment of resistant hypertension in special populations, such as non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in patients with chronic kidney disease. Several device based approaches have been tested, with renal denervation being the best supported and only approved interventional device treatment for resistant hypertension.

Haemodynamic monitoring during noncardiac surgery: past, present, and future

During surgery, various haemodynamic variables are monitored and optimised to maintain organ perfusion pressure and oxygen delivery - and to eventually improve outcomes. Important haemodynamic variables that provide an understanding of most pathophysiologic haemodynamic conditions during surgery include heart rate, arterial pressure, central venous pressure, pulse pressure variation/stroke volume variation, stroke volume, and cardiac output. A basic physiologic and pathophysiologic understanding of these haemodynamic variables and the corresponding monitoring methods is essential. We therefore revisit the pathophysiologic rationale for intraoperative monitoring of haemodynamic variables, describe the history, current use, and future technological developments of monitoring methods, and finally briefly summarise the evidence that haemodynamic management can improve patient-centred outcomes.

Accuracy and Performance of Triage Blood Pressure Measurements in A Real-World Clinic Setting

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the agreement and accuracy of triage blood pressure (BP) in a real-world clinic setting, compared with the reference standard.

STUDY DESIGN

Paired triage and standardized BP measurements from patients 4 through 21 years old evaluated in an obesity-related hypertension clinic were obtained via chart-review. Triage BPs were measured by a medical assistant or nurse, often by automated device. Triplicate manual BPs were obtained by the clinic physician. Bland-Altman analyses determined mean differences between paired triage and mean standardized BPs. GEE-based multivariable relative risk (RR) regression determined the RR of triage BP overestimation by ≥ 5 mmHg. Overall agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of triage BP measurements identifying hypertensive BP were determined.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty participants with 347 clinic encounters were included. Mean age was 13.3 years (SD 3.94), 76% were Black, and 58% were male. Overall mean systolic and diastolic BP difference was 8.7 mmHg (95% limits on agreement: -16.66, 34.07) and 4.1 mmHg (95% limits on agreement: -18.56, 26.68), respectively. Triage systolic BP was more likely overestimated by ≥ 5 mmHg when a large adult (RR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.21) or thigh cuff (RR = 1.94; 95% CI: 1.08, 3.51) was required compared with when a child/adult cuff was required. Overall agreement in identifying hypertensive BP was 57.6%. Sensitivity (52.6%), specificity (63.4%), positive predictive value (60.8%), and negative predictive value (55.3%) were low across all cuffs.

CONCLUSIONS

There was poor agreement between usual triage and standardized BP measurements, with potential for significant clinical implications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ReNEW Clinic Cohort Study (ReNEW), NCT03816462, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03816462.

Update in Outpatient General Internal Medicine: Practice-Changing Evidence Published in 2023

The expansive scope of internal medicine can make it challenging for clinicians to stay informed about new literature that changes practice. Guideline updates and synthesis of relevant evidence can facilitate incorporation of advancements into clinical practice. The titles and abstracts from the seven general medicine journals with highest impact factors and relevance to outpatient internal medicine were reviewed by six internal medicine physicians. Coronavirus disease 19 research was excluded. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings were reviewed. Additionally, article synopsis collections and databases were evaluated: American College of Physicians Journal Club, NEJM Journal Watch, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, McMaster ACCESSSS/DynaMed Evidence Alerts, and Cochrane Reviews. A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus based on clinical relevance to outpatient internal medicine, potential impact on practice, and strength of evidence. Article qualities and importance were debated until consensus was reached. Clusters of articles pertinent to the same topic were considered together. In total, seven practice-changing articles were included.

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.