Using out of office blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension

Impact of home blood pressure telemonitoring and blood pressure control: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Home blood pressure telemonitoring figures among the possible solutions that could help improve blood pressure control of hypertensive patients. To summarize the effectiveness of home blood pressure telemonitoring on blood pressure control from randomized, controlled studies.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for publications in English, reporting on randomized trials of home blood pressure telemonitoring vs. usual care. Outcome measures were office or ambulatory blood pressure changes, rate of blood pressure control, and number of antihypertensive drugs used by patients. A random effects model was applied.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. A high level of heterogeneity was found among studies for all the variables explored. Office blood pressure was reduced significantly more in patients randomized to home telemonitoring (systolic: 5.64 (95% confidence interval: 7.92, 3.36) mm Hg; diastolic: 2.78 (3.93, 1.62) mm Hg; 11 comparisons, n = 4,389). The effect on ambulatory blood pressure was smaller than on office blood pressure (systolic: 2.28 (4.32, 0.24); diastolic: 1.38 (3.55, +0.79) mm Hg; 3 comparisons, n = 655). The relative risk of blood pressure normalization (<140/90 mm Hg nondiabetics and <130/80 mm Hg diabetics) in the telemonitoring vs. the usual care group was 1.31 (1.06, 1.62) (5 comparisons, n = 2,432 subjects). Use of telemonitoring was associated with a significantly increased use of antihypertensive medications (+0.22 (+0.02, +0.43), 5 comparisons, n = 1,991).

CONCLUSIONS

Home blood pressure telemonitoring may represent a useful tool to improve blood pressure control. However, heterogeneity of published studies suggests that well designed, large-scale, randomized, controlled studies are still needed to demonstrate the clinical usefulness of this technique.

Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring: a joint scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (Class IIa; Level of Evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of >/=12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.

Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring: a joint scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American Society Of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association

Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is both cheaper and easier to perform than ambulatory BP monitoring. Monitors that use the oscillometric method are currently available that are accurate, reliable, easy to use, and relatively inexpensive. An increasing number of patients are using them regularly to check their BP at home, but although this has been endorsed by national and international guidelines, detailed recommendations for their use have been lacking. There is a rapidly growing literature showing that measurements taken by patients at home are often lower than readings taken in the office and closer to the average BP recorded by 24-hour ambulatory monitors, which is the BP that best predicts cardiovascular risk. Because of the larger numbers of readings that can be taken by HBPM than in the office and the elimination of the white-coat effect (the increase of BP during an office visit), home readings are more reproducible than office readings and show better correlations with measures of target organ damage. In addition, prospective studies that have used multiple home readings to express the true BP have found that home BP predicts risk better than office BP (Class IIa; Level of Evidence A). This call-to-action article makes the following recommendations: (1) It is recommended that HBPM should become a routine component of BP measurement in the majority of patients with known or suspected hypertension; (2) Patients should be advised to purchase oscillometric monitors that measure BP on the upper arm with an appropriate cuff size and that have been shown to be accurate according to standard international protocols. They should be shown how to use them by their healthcare providers; (3) Two to 3 readings should be taken while the subject is resting in the seated position, both in the morning and at night, over a period of 1 week. A total of >or=12 readings are recommended for making clinical decisions; (4) HBPM is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed or suspected hypertension, in whom it may distinguish between white-coat and sustained hypertension. If the results are equivocal, ambulatory BP monitoring may help to establish the diagnosis; (5) In patients with prehypertension, HBPM may be useful for detecting masked hypertension; (6) HBPM is recommended for evaluating the response to any type of antihypertensive treatment and may improve adherence; (7) The target HBPM goal for treatment is <135/85 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in high-risk patients; (8) HBPM is useful in the elderly, in whom both BP variability and the white-coat effect are increased; (9) HBPM is of value in patients with diabetes, in whom tight BP control is of paramount importance; (10) Other populations in whom HBPM may be beneficial include pregnant women, children, and patients with kidney disease; and (11) HBPM has the potential to improve the quality of care while reducing costs and should be reimbursed.

Systems for care of hypertension in the United States

Control of hypertension in recent clinical trials varies from 48% to 65%. However, in community care of hypertension in the United States, estimates of control of hypertension are far lower. The United States has no single system of care; however, several care systems can be identified for comparison, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, managed care organizations, and the Indian Health Service. This review compares control of hypertension in certain centers in these systems with that achieved in clinical trials and in the community at large. Certain components of care systems are assessed for their contribution to the control of hypertension. The author concludes that for community control of hypertension to approach that achieved in clinical trials, the use of physician extenders, together with reduced or minimal cost of medication, improved education of providers with feedback, and computerization of management systems will be needed. In addition, specific interventions targeted to medically underserved groups will be required.

Review of resistant hypertension

Despite the prevalence of hypertension, blood pressure (BP) can be controlled with effective therapy in most patients. However, in a small percentage of the hypertensive population, BP remains refractory to therapeutic measures. In such patients who have so-called "resistant" hypertension, proper evaluation and assessment have to be undertaken to improve the BP control. There are some situations or factors that may make hypertension control difficult in some patients. Therefore, it is necessary to identify possible reasons for the loss of BP control and rectify them to achieve normotension. In addition to indicated work-up for secondary causes, aggressive treatment (nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic) of hypertension is required to prevent excessive morbidity and mortality in this special population.

Can NPs rely on self-blood pressure measurements?

The development of relatively inexpensive and automated devices has stimulated the use of self or home blood pressure (BP) monitors. This article provides a guide for NPs to understand when self-BP measurement (SBPM) is a reliable alternative to traditional in-office measurements.

Left ventricular hypertrophy in treated hypertensive patients with good blood pressure control outside the clinic, but poor clinic blood pressure control

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in treated patients with good blood pressure (BP) control during multiple home BP (HBP) measurements and during 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), but with unsatisfactory BP control in the clinic. These patients were compared with treated hypertensives whose BP was well controlled under the three circumstances.

METHODS

Seventy-two treated consecutive patients (group I, age 56 +/- 10 years) with clinic BP values > or = 140/90 mmHg, and a difference between clinic and self-measured HBP > 10 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and/or > 20 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP), underwent the following procedures: (1) clinic BP measurement; (2) routine diagnostic work-up; (3) HBP monitoring; (4) 24-h ABPM; (5) echocardiography. Thirty-five hypertensive patients with satisfactory BP control according to clinic (< 140/90 mmHg), HBP (< or = 131/82 mmHg) and ABP criteria (< or = 125/79 mmHg) were included as the control group (group II, age 55 +/- 9 years).

RESULTS

In group I, 33 subjects out of the 72 (46%) with clinic BP > 140/90 mmHg had BP values controlled outside the clinic (23 according to HBP criteria and 22 according to ABP criteria). The prevalence of LVH (LV mass index > 134 g/m2 in men and > 110 g/m2 in women) was significantly higher in these patients (15.1 versus 2.8%, P < 0.01) than in group II (BP also controlled in the clinic), despite the fact that HBP and ABP were reduced to similar levels in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Our data provide evidence that treated hypertensive patients with good BP control at home or during ambulatory monitoring, but incomplete BP control in the clinic, have more pronounced cardiac alterations than patients with both clinic and out of the clinic BP control. This finding offers a new piece of information about the diagnostic value of BP measurement in the clinic to assess BP control during antihypertensive treatment.

Management of refractory hypertension

True refractory hypertension is unusual in clinical practice, thanks to the widespread availability of antihypertensive drugs and national mandate to optimize blood pressure control levels in the community. However, at times the blood pressure may become refractory to initial drug therapy. When the blood pressure levels do not reach a target level despite usual therapy, hypertension is considered refractory. There should be proper evaluation of such patients to determine the factor(s) responsible for resistance to therapy. In many patients, proper adjustment of drug doses, including effective use of diuretics, restores the blood pressure level. For some patients, potent drug therapy, such as hydralazine or minoxidil, must be considered. Based upon clinical course, work-up for secondary causes of hypertension should be considered in selected patients. Refractory hypertension requires proper analysis of etiologic factors and consideration of rational drug selection, and at times, work-up for secondary causes of hypertension.