Are Automated Blood Pressure Monitors Comparable to Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitors? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Conventional office blood pressure measurements and unattended automated office blood pressure compared with home self-measurement and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether automated office blood pressure (BP) (AOBP) measurement is a better method for measuring BP in the office than conventional techniques and an alternative to out-of-office BP measurements: home-self BP (HSBP) or ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of 74 patients and compared AOBP with the conventional technique using a mercury sphygmomanometer and with both out-to-office BP measurements: HSBP of 7 days (three measurements in the morning, afternoon, and night) and daytime ABPM. In addition, we compared BP values obtained using HSBP and ABPM to determine their level of agreement. We used ANOVA to compare means, Bland-Altman, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for concordance.

RESULTS

BP values obtained by the two office methods were similar: conventional 147.2/85.0 mmHg and AOBP 146.0/85.5 mmHg ( P > 0.05) with good agreement (ICC 0.85). The mean SBP differences between AOBP and HSBP ( P < 0.001) and between AOBP and ABPM ( P < 0.001) were 8.6/13.0 mmHg with limits of agreement of -21.2 to 38.5 and -18.4 to 44.3 mmHg, respectively. The average SBP values obtained by HSBP were 4.3 mmHg higher than those obtained by ABPM ( P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed good agreement and concordance between the two office methods as well between the two out-to-office methods, although there was a significant difference in the mean SBP between the HSBP and ABPM. Moreover, AOBP was not comparable to either HSBP or ABPM; therefore, the estimation of out-to-office BP using AOBP is not supported.

Comparison of automated office blood pressure measurement with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement

PURPOSE

Although 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement (24-h ABPM) is the most important method to establish true hypertension, in clinical practice often repeated automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements are used because of convenience and lower costs. We aimed to assess the agreement rate between a 30 and 60 min AOBP and 24-h ABPM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with known hypertension (cohort 1) and patients visiting the neurology outpatient clinic after minor stroke or transient ischaemic attack (cohort 2) were selected. We performed AOBP for 30-60 min at 5-min intervals followed by 24-h ABPM and calculated average values of both measurements. Agreement between the two methods was studied with McNemar and Bland-Altman plots with a clinically relevant limit of agreement of ≤10 mm Hg difference in systolic BP.

RESULTS

Our final cohort consisted of 135 patients from cohort 1 and 72 patients from cohort 2. We found relatively low agreement based on the clinical relevant cut-off value; 64.7% of the measurements were within the limits of agreement for 24-h systolic and 50.2% for 24-h diastolic. This was 61.4% for daytime systolic and 56.6% for daytime diastolic. In 73.5% of the patients, both methods led to the same diagnosis of either being hypertensive or non-hypertensive. This resulted in a significant difference between the methods to determine the diagnosis of hypertension (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that 30-60 min AOBP measurements cannot replace a 24-h ABPM and propose to perform 24-h ABPM at least on a yearly basis to confirm AOBP measurements.

Blood pressure measurement: Should technique define targets?

Accurate assessment of blood pressure (BP) is the cornerstone of hypertension management. The objectives of this study were to quantify the effect of medical personnel presence during BP measurement by automated oscillometric BP (AOBP) and to compare resting office BP by AOBP to daytime average BP by 24‐h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). This study is a prospective randomized cross‐over trial, conducted in a referral population. Patients underwent measurements of casual and resting office BP by AOBP. Resting BP was measured as either unattended (patient alone in the room during resting and measurements) or as partially attended (nurse present in the room during measurements) immediately prior to and after 24‐h ABPM. The primary outcome was the effect of unattended 5‐min rest preceding AOBP assessment as the difference between casual and resting BP measured by the Omron HEM 907XL. Ninety patients consented and 78 completed the study. The mean difference between the casual and Omron unattended systolic BP was 7.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5, 9.5). There was no significant difference between partially attended and unattended resting office systolic BP. Resting office BP (attended and partially attended) underestimated daytime systolic BP load from 24‐h ABPM. The presence or absence of medical personnel does not impact casual office BP which is higher than resting office AOBP. The requirement for unattended rest may be dropped if logistically challenging. Casual and resting office BP readings by AOBP do not capture the complexity of information provided by the 24‐h ABPM.

Utility of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in potential living kidney donors

Introduction

Hypertension (HTN) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease; therefore, it is imperative to risk stratify potential kidney donors during evaluation. Clinic blood pressure (CBP) measurement is inaccurate in assessing presence or absence of HTN. There is paucity of data about utility of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) during kidney donor evaluation.

Methods

24-h ABPM is performed on all kidney donors at Mayo Clinic Florida. We conducted retrospective review of 264 consecutive potential kidney donors from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2017. Demographic, comorbid conditions, laboratory results and 24-h ABPM data were collected. Subjects were divided into two groups: Group1: Subjects with no prior history of HTN and new diagnosis of HTN using 24-h ABPM; Group 2: Subjects with no prior history of hypertension and normal BP on 24-h ABPM.

Results

Baseline demographic included mean age 46.40 years, 39% males, 78.4% Caucasians, and mean BMI was 26.94. Twenty one subjects (8.0%) had prior diagnosis of HTN. Among 243 subjects without prior HTN, 62 (25.5%) were newly diagnosed with HTN using 24-h ABPM. CBP was high only in 27 out of 62 (43.6%) of newly diagnosed HTN subjects. Thirty-five subjects (14.4%) had masked HTN and 14 subjects (5.8%) had white-coat HTN. Newly diagnosed hypertensive subjects were more likely to be males as compared to Group 2 (53.2% vs 34.3% P = 0.008). There was a trend of more non-Caucasians subjects (30.6% vs 19.9% P = 0.08) and more active smokers (17.7% vs 11.6%, P = 0.054) in Group1 as compared to Group 2. Only 17 (27.4%) out of 62 newly diagnosed hypertensive subjects were deemed suitable for kidney donation as compared to 105 (58.0%) out of 181 normotensive subjects (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In our cohort, use of ABPM resulted in new diagnosis of HTN in 1 out of 4 potential kidney donors. Newly diagnosed HTN was more common in men, those with non-Caucasian race, and in active smokers. There was a significantly reduced acceptance rate for kidney donation among newly diagnosed HTN subjects. Further studies are needed to determine the value of 24-h ABPM among these high risk groups.

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings After Zero or Five Minutes of Rest

[Figure: see text].

Screening for Hypertension in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and can be modified through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements in adults, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for effectiveness of screening; accuracy studies for screening and confirmatory measurements (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard); RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies and observational studies for harms of screening and confirmation.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; meta-analyses and qualitative syntheses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality; cardiovascular events; quality of life; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values; harms of screening.

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies (N = 215 534) were identified in this systematic review. One cluster RCT (n = 140 642) of a multicomponent intervention including hypertension screening reported fewer annual cardiovascular-related hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference, 3.02 per 1000 people; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n = 11 309) of initial office-based blood pressure screening showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (n = 57 128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of 8 office-based confirmation studies (n = 53 183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66). Meta-analysis of 4 home-based confirmation studies (n = 1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). Thirteen studies (n = 5150) suggested that screening was associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress; evidence on absenteeism was mixed. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement was associated with temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.

Accuracy of abbreviated protocols for unattended automated office blood pressure measurements, a retrospective study

Background

Blood pressure measurement (BPM) is one of the most often performed procedures in clinical practice, but especially office BPM is prone to errors. Unattended automated office BPM (AOBPM) is somewhat standardised and observer-independent, but time and space consuming. We aimed to assess whether an AOBPM protocol can be abbreviated without losing accuracy.

Design

In our retrospective single centre study, we used all AOBPM (AOBPM protocol of the SPRINT study), collected over 14 months. Three sequential BPM (after 5 minutes of rest, spaced 2 minutes) were automatically recorded with the patient alone in a quiet room resulting in three systolic and diastolic values. We compared the mean of all three (RefProt) with the mean of the first two (ShortProtA) and the single first BPM (ShortProtB).

Results

We analysed 413 AOBPM sets from 210 patients. Mean age was 52±16 years. Mean values for RefProt were 128.3/81.3 mmHg, for ShortProtA 128.4/81.4 mmHg, for ShortProtB 128.8/81.4 mmHg. Mean difference and limits of agreement for RefProt vs. ShortProtA and ShortProtB were -0.1±4.2/-0.1±2.8 mmHg and -0.5±8.1/-0.1±5.3 mmHg, respectively. With ShortProtA, 83% of systolic and 92% of diastolic measurements were within 2 mmHg from RefProt (67/82% for ShortProtB). ShortProtA or ShortProtB led to no significant hypertensive reclassifications in comparison to RefProt (p-values 0.774/1.000/1.000/0.556).

Conclusion

Based on our results differences between the RefProt and ShortProtA are minimal and within acceptable limits of agreement. Therefore, the automated procedure may be shorted from 3 to 2 measurements, but a single measurement is insufficient.

Use of Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement in the Evaluation of Elevated Blood Pressures in Children and Adolescents

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of agreement between automated office blood pressures (AOBP), auscultated or manual office BP (manual office blood pressure), and 24-hour ABPM, and to explore the ability of AOBP and manual office blood pressure to correctly identify daytime ambulatory hypertension in children.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively compared BPs obtained by AOBP and manual office blood pressure to predict daytime hypertension on ABPM. Six BPs were taken by AOBP followed by manual office blood pressure. Office hypertension was defined by BPs ≥95th percentile for sex and height percentiles for those <13 years of age and a BP of ≥130/80 mm Hg for ages ≥13 years. Daytime ambulatory hypertension was diagnosed if mean wake BPs were ≥95th percentile and BP loads were ≥25%. Application of adult ABPM thresholds for daytime hypertension (130/80 mm Hg) was assessed in ages ≥13 years. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated considering ABPM as the reference.

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 187 patient encounters. Overall, the best agreement was found if both AOBP and manual office blood pressure showed hypertension, but owing to low sensitivity up to 49% of children with hypertension would be misclassified. The use of adult thresholds for ABPM did not improve agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither AOBP nor manual office blood pressure confirm or exclude daytime ambulatory hypertension with confidence. These results suggest an ongoing role for ABPM in evaluation of hypertension in children.

Reference values of retinal microcirculation parameters derived from a population random sample

Retinal microcirculation reflects retinal perfusion abnormalities and retinal arterial structural changes at relatively early stages of various cardiovascular diseases. Our objective has been to establish reference values for major functional and structural parameters of retinal microcirculation in a randomly selected urban population sample. A total of 398 randomly selected individuals from an urban population aged 25 to 65 years, resident in Pilsen, Czech Republic, were screened for major cardiovascular risk factors. Retinal microcirculation was assessed using scanning laser Doppler flowmetry (SLDF), with data evaluable in 343 patients. Of this number, complete data were available for 256 individuals free from manifest cardiovascular disease, diabetes and drug treatment for hypertension and/or dyslipidemia, constituting the reference value population. Juxtapapillary retinal capillary blood flow has increased significantly with age whereas vessel and luminal diameters have decreased. No sex differences in retinal microcirculation parameters have been found. Therefore, reference values for retinal microcirculation parameters have been established by age groups. Unattended automated office systolic BP, after adjusting for age, correlated significantly with wall-to-lumen ratio (WLR) and wall thickness (WT). Moreover, after adjusting for age and mean BP, a positive relationship has been found between carotid femoral pulse wave velocity and WT, WLR and wall cross-sectional area, indicating the interaction between micro- and macro-vasculature. In conclusion, our study is the first to provide reference values of retinal microcirculation parameters in a random Caucasian population sample. Our results have shown that, at the population level, the first structural changes in retinal microcirculation are those in lumen diameters. Of note, a close relationship between BP and vascular remodeling of retinal arterioles and between aortic stiffness and WLR of retinal arterioles suggests an interaction between micro- and macro-vasculature.

Optimización del desempeño del observador al medir la presión arterial en el consultorio: declaración de posición de la Comisión Lancet de Hipertensión

La hipertensión arterial es una causa modificable muy prevalente de enfermedades cardiovasculares, accidentes cerebrovasculares y muerte. Medir con exactitud la presión arterial es fundamental, dado que un error de medición de 5 mmHg puede ser motivo para clasificar incorrectamente como hipertensas a 84 millones de personas en todo el mundo. En la presente declaración de posición se resumen los procedimientos para optimizar el desempeño del observador al medir la presión arterial en el consultorio, con atención especial a los entornos de ingresos bajos o medianos, donde esta medición se ve complicada por limitaciones de recursos y tiempo, sobrecarga de trabajo y falta de suministro eléctrico. Es posible reducir al mínimo muchos errores de medición con una preparación adecuada de los pacientes y el uso de técnicas estandarizadas. Para simplificar la medición y prevenir errores del observador, deben usarse tensiómetros semiautomáticos o automáticos de manguito validados, en lugar del método por auscultación. Pueden ayudar también la distribución de tareas, la creación de un área específica de medición y el uso de aparatos semiautomáticos o de carga solar. Es fundamental garantizar la capacitación inicial y periódica de los integrantes del equipo de salud. Debe considerarse la implementación de programas de certificación de bajo costo y fácilmente accesibles con el objetivo de mejorar la medición de la presión arterial.

Optimizing observer performance of clinic blood pressure measurement: a position statement from the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group

High blood pressure (BP) is a highly prevalent modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death. Accurate BP measurement is critical, given that a 5-mmHg measurement error may lead to incorrect hypertension status classification in 84 million individuals worldwide. This position statement summarizes procedures for optimizing observer performance in clinic BP measurement, with special attention given to low-to-middle-income settings, where resource limitations, heavy workloads, time constraints, and lack of electrical power make measurement more challenging. Many measurement errors can be minimized by appropriate patient preparation and standardized techniques. Validated semi-automated/automated upper arm cuff devices should be used instead of auscultation to simplify measurement and prevent observer error. Task sharing, creating a dedicated measurement workstation, and using semi-automated or solar-charged devices may help. Ensuring observer training, and periodic re-training, is critical. Low-cost, easily accessible certification programs should be considered to facilitate best BP measurement practice.

Large discrepancy between unobserved automated office blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure in a high cardiovascular risk cohort

OBJECTIVES

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement has been shown to eliminate the white-coat effect and to be more concordant with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure (BP) measurements. This study aimed to compare AOBP with ABPM in patients with a high cardiovascular risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Participants were recruited from a prospective cohort study (Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disease Etiology Research Center-High Risk Cohort, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02003781). A total of 1208 persons who had undergone both AOBP and ABPM within 7 days of each other were analyzed. The 95% limits of agreement between systolic AOBP and daytime ABPM SBP were -34.8 and 20.2 mmHg (mean difference = -7.3 ± 14.0). The mean differences in blood pressure across quintiles of AOBP distributions increased with decreasing systolic AOBP [-17.8 ± 11.2 (Q1, systolic AOBP <113 mmHg), -10.9 ± 11.1 (Q2, systolic AOBP 113-121 mmHg), -8.5 ± 10.7 (Q3, systolic AOBP 121-128 mmHg), -4.2 ± 11.8 (Q4, systolic AOBP 128-137 mmHg), 4.9 ± 14.2 (Q5, systolic AOBP >137 mmHg), P < 0.001]. The prevalence of masked hypertension phenomena was 310 (25.7%) and that of white-coat hypertension phenomena was 102 (8.4%). Large discrepancies were significantly associated with lower systolic AOBP, higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score, and history of asymptomatic cardiovascular disease.

CONCLUSION

The lower range of systolic AOBP exhibited a large discrepancy with daytime ABPM SBP. Moreover, higher cardiovascular risk was independently associated with larger discrepancy between AOBP and ABPM. The status of blood pressure control should be confirmed using out-of-office blood pressure measurements, even when using AOBP as a clinical BP reference in high-risk patients.

Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometer after corneal refractive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Accurate measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) after corneal refractive surgery is of great significance to clinic, and comparisons among various IOP measuring instruments are not rare, but there is a lack of unified analysis. Although Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) is currently the internationally recognized gold standard for IOP measurement, its results are severely affected by central corneal thickness (CCT). Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) takes certain biomechanical properties of cornea into account and is supposed to be less dependent of CCT. In this study, we conducted the meta-analysis to systematically assess the differences and similarities of IOP values measured by ORA and GAT in patients after corneal refractive surgery from the perspective of evidence-based medicine.

METHODS

The authors searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane library and Chinese electronic databases of CNKI and Wanfang) from Jan. 2005 to Jan. 2019, studies describing IOP comparisons measured by GAT and ORA after corneal refractive surgery were included. Quality assessment, subgroup analysis, meta-regression analysis and publication bias analysis were applied in succession.

RESULTS

Among the 273 literatures initially retrieved, 8 literatures (13 groups of data) with a total of 724 eyes were included in the meta-analysis, and all of which were English literatures. In the pooled analysis, the weighted mean difference (WMD) between IOPcc and IOP_GAT was 2.67 mmHg (95% CI: 2.20~3.14 mmHg, p < 0.0001), the WMD between IOPg and IOP_GAT was - 0.27 mmHg (95% CI: - 0.70~0.16 mmHg, p = 0.2174). In the subgroup analysis of postoperative IOPcc and IOP_GAT, the heterogeneity among the data on surgical procedure was zero, while the heterogeneity of other subgroups was still more than 50%. The comparison of the mean difference of pre- and post-operative IOP (∆IOP) was: mean-∆IOPg > mean-∆IOP_GAT > mean-∆IOPcc.

CONCLUSIONS

IOPcc, which is less dependent on CCT, may be more close to the true IOP after corneal refractive surgery compared with IOPg and IOP_GAT, and the recovery of IOPcc after corneal surface refractive surgery may be more stable than that after lamellar refractive surgery.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement in Screening for Hypertension in Kenya

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Despite increasing adoption of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAOBP) measurement for determining clinic blood pressure (BP), its diagnostic performance in screening for hypertension in low-income settings has not been determined. We determined the validity of uAOBP in screening for hypertension, using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring as the reference standard. We studied a random population sample of 982 Kenyan adults; mean age, 42 years; 60% women; 2% with diabetes mellitus; none taking antihypertensive medications. We calculated sensitivity using 3 different screen positivity cutoffs (≥130/80, ≥135/85, and ≥140/90 mm Hg) and other measures of validity/agreement. Mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring systolic BP was similar to mean uAOBP systolic BP (mean difference, 0.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, −0.6 to 1.9), but the 95% limits of agreement were wide (−39 to 40 mm Hg). Overall discriminatory accuracy of uAOBP was the same (area under receiver operating characteristic curves, 0.66–0.68; 95% CI range, 0.64–0.71) irrespective of uAOBP cutoffs used. Sensitivity of uAOBP displayed an inverse association (P<0.001) with the cutoff selected, progressively decreasing from 67% (95% CI, 62–72) when using a cutoff of ≥130/80 mm Hg to 55% (95% CI, 49–60) at ≥135/85 mm Hg to 44% (95% CI, 39–49) at ≥140/90 mm Hg. Diagnostic performance was significantly better (P<0.001) in overweight and obese individuals (body mass index, >25 kg/m²). No differences in results were present in other subanalyses. uAOBP misclassifies significant proportions of individuals undergoing screening for hypertension in Kenya. Additional studies on how to improve screening strategies in this setting are needed.

Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement and Cardiac Target Organ Damage, A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

The ESC-2018 guidelines suggest the use of Unattended automated office blood pressure (UAOBP) to avoid or at least reduce the white coat effect, even if do not support its use as preferred method.

AIM

To assess the pressure difference between UAOBP and Attended office blood pressure (AOBP) and to evaluate their correlations with target organ damage in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

UAOBP and AOBP were taken in a cohort of 48 outpatients. The pressure difference between the 2 methods and their correlation with anthropometric and cardiac parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Unattended systolic and diastolic BP were lower than Attended systolic and diastolic BP (135 ± 17 mmHg vs 139 ± 21 mmHg and 79 ± 10 mmHg vs 82 ± 10 mmg). ΔDBP was significantly directly correlated with female sex (r = 0.347, p = 0.016) and it was lower in men compared to women (0.11 ± 8.9 mmHg vs 6.07 ± 7.42 mmHg, p = 0.016). Correlation coefficients for LVMi and RWT for attended and unattended BP were not statistically different (for LVMi r = 0.286 vs r = 0.381, p = 0.61, for RWT r = 0.413 vs r = 0.363, p = 0.78). The relationship between attended and unattended BP was described by the following equation: y = - 4.68 + 1.06*x; where Y is the attended systolic BP and X is the unattended systolic BP; in accordance with this equation, an unattended systolic BP of 140 mmHg corresponds to an attended systolic BP of 143.7 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

UAOBP provides significantly lower values than AOBP. The difference in BP values between the two methods is much lower than the one obtained in most clinical studies.

Comparison of blood pressure values-self-measured at home, measured at an unattended office, and measured at a conventional attended office

Self-measured blood pressure (BP) at home (HBP) has been commonly used in clinical practice. Although the unattended office BP (UBP), in which a patient is left alone before and during the measurement, has been investigated, the advantages of UBP over HBP or conventionally measured attended office BP obtained using automated devices (CBP) remain unclear. We performed a multicenter clinical study in Japan to compare the UBP, CBP, and HBP among 308 patients with hypertension at 3 clinics (women, 57.8%; mean age 71.8 years; under antihypertensive drug therapy, 96.4%). The patients measured HBP twice in the morning and twice in the evening for 5 days according to the Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines. Using the Omron HEM-907 cuff-oscillometric device, the UBP and CBP were measured in line with the protocol in the Systolic blood PRessure INtervention Trial (SPRINT) and in accordance with the guidelines, respectively. Correlation coefficients were ≤0.16 for the comparison of UBP versus morning and evening HBP for the systolic measurement, whereas they were approximately 0.5 (P < 0.001) for the diastolic measurement. The difference between UBP minus HBP was small on average but varied among individuals (mean ± SD for UBP minus morning HBP: 0.9 ± 17.8/-4.5 ± 10.5 mmHg; UBP minus evening HBP: 5.7 ± 17.8/-0.1 ± 11.3 mmHg). In contrast, the measurement values of CBP and UBP were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.72), but the difference between CBP minus UBP was 10.4 ± 12.0/4.2 ± 6.5 mmHg. Based on the low correlations and wide range of differences, UBP cannot be used as an alternative to HBP.

Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purposes of this study are to review evidence supporting the use of automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement and to provide practical guidance for implementing it in clinical settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mean AOBP readings correlate with awake ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) values and predict cardiovascular outcomes better than conventional techniques. However, heterogeneity among readings suggests that AOBP does not replace ABPM. Blood pressure (BP) measurement protocols differ among commonly described AOBP devices, but all produce valid BP estimates. Rest periods should not precede AOBP with BpTRU devices but should occur before use with Omron HEM-907 and Microlife WatchBP Office devices. Attended and unattended AOBP appear to produce similar results. This review also describes a framework to aid AOBP's implementation in clinical practice. Evidence supports AOBP as the preferred method for measuring BP in office settings, but this approach should be a complement to out-of-office measurements, such as self-measured BP monitoring or 24-h ABPM, not a substitute for it.

Blood Pressure Goals in Patients with CKD: A Review of Evidence and Guidelines

Hypertension affects the vast majority of patients with CKD and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, ESKD, and death. Over the past decade, a number of hypertension guidelines have been published with varying recommendations for BP goals in patients with CKD. Most recently, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2017 hypertension guidelines set a BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg for patients with CKD and others at elevated cardiovascular risk. These guidelines were heavily influenced by the landmark Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), which documented that an intensive BP goal to a systolic BP <120 mm Hg decreased the risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality in nondiabetic adults at high cardiovascular risk, many of whom had CKD; the intensive BP goal did not retard CKD progression. It is noteworthy that SPRINT measured BP with automated devices (5-minute wait period, average of three readings) often without observers, a technique that potentially results in BP values that are lower than what is typically measured in the office. Still, results from SPRINT along with long-term follow-up data from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension suggest that a BP goal <130/80 mm Hg will reduce mortality in patients with CKD. Unfortunately, data are more limited in patients with diabetes or stage 4-5 CKD. Increased adverse events, including electrolyte abnormalities and decreased eGFR, necessitate careful laboratory monitoring. In conclusion, a BP goal of <130/80 is a reasonable, evidence-based BP goal in patients with CKD. Implementation of this intensive BP target will require increased attention to measuring BP accurately, assessing patient preferences and concurrent medical conditions, and monitoring for adverse effects of therapy.

In the aftermath of SPRINT: further comparison of unattended automated office blood pressure measurement and 24-hour blood pressure monitoring

AIMS

Several papers reported that unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) is closely related to daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). In the present study, we aim to study uAutoOBP and its relation to 24-hour ABPM and ABPM variability.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in two Czech academic hypertension centres. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; attended BP three times with auscultatory method (AuscOBP) by the physician. ABPM was performed within one week from the clinical visit.

RESULTS

Data on 98 subjects aged 67.7 ± 9.3 years with 24-hour ABPM 120.3 ± 10.6/72.7 ± 7.9 mm Hg are reported. uAutoOBP was lower than 24-hour (by -5.2 ± 11.3/-0.5 ± 6.9 mm Hg) and daytime (by -6.7 ± 12.82.4 ± 8.0 mm Hg) ABPM and the individual variability of the difference was very large (up to 30 mm Hg). The correlation coefficients between ABPM and uAutoOBP were similar compared to AuscOBP (p ≥ .17). Variability of uAutoOBP, but not AuscOBP, readings during one clinical visit was related to short-term blood pressure variability of ABPM. The difference between AuscOBP and uAutoOBP was larger in patients with white-coat effect compared to other blood pressure control groups (25.1 ± 7.0 vs. 2.2 ± 10.3 mm Hg; p = .0036).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that uAutoOBP is not good predictor of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, not even of the daytime values. It might, however, indicate short-term blood pressure variability and, when compared with AuscOBP, also detect patients with white-coat effect.

Estimated glomerular filtration rate and the risk-benefit profile of intensive blood pressure control amongst nondiabetic patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01206062) reported reduced cardiovascular events by intensive blood pressure (BP) control amongst hypertensive patients without diabetes. However, the risk-benefit profile of intensive BP control may differ across estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT. Nondiabetic hypertensive adults (n = 9361) with eGFR >20 mL per min per 1.73 m² were enrolled from 102 US facilities between November 2010 and March 2013 and were followed up until August 2015 (median follow-up, 3.26 years). Patients were randomly assigned to either a systolic BP target of <120 or <140 mmHg (for intensive or standard treatment, respectively). The outcomes of interests were the development of (i) fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and (ii) acute kidney injury (AKI).

RESULTS

The cardiovascular benefit from intensive treatment was attenuated with lower eGFR (P_interaction  = 0.019), whereas eGFR did not modify the adverse effect on AKI (P_interaction  = 0.179). Amongst 891 participants with eGFR <45 mL per min per 1.73 m² , intensive treatment did not reduce the cardiovascular outcome (54/446 vs. 54/445 events in the standard group, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62-1.38) with an absolute rate difference (ARD) of -0.02 (95% CI, -0.07 to +0.03) per 100 patient-years, whereas it increased AKI (62/446 vs. 38/445 events in the standard group; HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.12-2.66) with an ARD of +1.93 (95% CI, +1.88 to +1.97) per 100 patient-years.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive BP control may provide little or no benefit and even be harmful for patients with moderate-to-advanced chronic kidney disease.