Comparison of Different Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement Devices: Evidence of Nonequivalence and Clinical Implications

Intelligent Assist Office Blood Pressures (IOBP) versus awake ambulatory monitoring and conventional auscultatory office readings in Chinese primary medical institutions

To practice standardized office blood pressure (OBP) measurement guidelines pragmatically, we developed an intelligent assisted OBP (IOBP) measurement system in the Chinese community, which can automatically obtain two or three BP values after a 5-min rest before the patients visit the doctor and transfer values to the community medical network in real time. We conducted a comparative study to investigate the agreement among IOBP, awake ambulatory BP (ABP), and conventional auscultatory OBP at different BP levels. Participants were divided into three groups according to BP, with 120/80 mmHg and 160/100 mmHg as the cut-off points. Attended IOBP, unattended IOBP, and auscultatory OBP were randomly measured before ABP monitoring. In total, 245 participants were included in the analysis. The mean systolic attended/unattended IOBP, auscultatory OBP, and awake ABP were 135.0, 136.7, 135.6, and 136.2 mmHg, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of -1.1 and 0.5 mmHg for systolic attended/unattended IOBP compared with awake ABP in the overall sample. For auscultatory OBP, the bias was -0.4 (attended) and 1.2 mmHg (unattended). The discrepancy between the systolic attended/unattended IOBP and awake ABP was inconsistent at different BP levels. In Group 1 the values were -8.4 and -6.9 mmHg, whereas in Group 3, the values were 9.4 and 10.0 mmHg. BP measured using the IOBP measurement system was in accordance with awake ABP and conventional OBP, and can be a good choice in the Chinese community.

Relationship between arterial stiffness and unattended or attended blood pressure values

BACKGROUND AND METHOD

Measurement of 'unattended' blood pressure (BP) may reduce or eliminate the 'white-coat effect'. Despite the possible advantages of this approach for BP measurement, only few studies analysed the relationship between unattended BP and cardiovascular events or with hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD). The aim of our study was to evaluate the relationship between 'attended' or 'unattended' BP values and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) in 285 individuals undergoing a visit and assessment of arterial stiffness at an ESH Excellence Centre. Unattended BP (measured with the patient alone in the room, with an oscillometric device programmed to perform three BP measurements, at 1-min intervals, after 5 min) and attended BP were measured with the same device, on the same day of the measurement of PWV, in a random order.

RESULTS

Mean age was 63 ± 13 years, mean BMI 26 ± 4, 47% were women, 76% had hypertension (55% treated). Systolic unattended BP was lower than attended SBP (124.4 ± 14.3 vs. 130.9 ± 16.1 mmHg). PWV was similarly correlated with attended and unattended SBP values (r = 0.428 and r = 0.404, P < 0.0001, respectively). No difference for the prediction of increased arterial stiffness was observed at receiver operator curves (ROCs) analysis [attended SBP area under the curve (AUC) 0.665, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.607-0.720 vs. unattended SBP: AUC 0.651, 95% CI 0.593-0.706, P for the comparison = ns].

CONCLUSION

Attended and unattended BP values are similarly correlated with PWV, the gold standard measure of arterial stiffness. These findings may provide further information on the clinical value of unattended BP.

Performance of an automated blood pressure measurement device in a stroke rehabilitation unit

CONTEXT

Valid blood pressure (BP) measurements are needed in post-stroke rehabilitation hospital units for the management of hypertension. Automated devices could be used to improve on usual care BP measurement. However, more information is needed about the performance of these devices in such a context.

METHODS

This prospective nonrandomized study was performed in stroke patients with hypertension hospitalized in a stroke rehabilitation unit. Two in-hospital BP assessment strategies were compared: usual care BP and in-hospital automated office BP (AOBP) standardized measurements. In-office AOBP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) were also performed on these patients. The main outcome was SBP. Study follow-up was until discharge, up to a maximum of 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients with stroke hospitalized in a rehabilitation unit were included. Usual care BP was 130 ± 12/79 ± 9 mmHg and differed from an in-hospital AOBP of 117 ± 14/75 ± 12 mmHg (P < 0.001/P < 0.001). In-hospital and in-office AOBP measurements did not differ. Twenty percent of patients reached SBP therapeutic goals according to in-hospital AOBP but not according to usual care BP measurements.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that in a post-stroke rehabilitation unit, standardized in-hospital AOBP estimates are on average much lower than the usual care BP correlates and similar to the in-office AOBP estimates. In-hospital AOBP devices in a stroke rehabilitation unit could add important information for the management of hypertension.

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.

Are Unattended Blood Pressure Measurements Necessary in All Patients Visiting an Outpatient Cardiology Clinic?

INTRODUCTION

Unattended automatic office blood pressure (BP) measurement has given new evidence regarding treatment goals.

AIM

We aimed to explore any differences between unattended and conventional office BP measurements in different groups of patients visiting a European Society of Hypertension (ESH)  Excellence Centre.

METHODS

We performed two unattended (Microlife Watch BP Home) followed by a single attended (mercury sphygmomanometer) BP measurement in 310 patients (mean age 62 ± 15 years, 151 males, 64% hypertensives and 36% normotensive individuals) visiting our ESH Centre for a scheduled follow-up. Office BP < 140 mmHg (systolic) and < 90 mmHg (diastolic) were characterized as controlled or normal in hypertensives and normotensive individuals, respectively.

RESULTS

Attended BP (systolic/diastolic) was higher than unattended BP in total population (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02) and hypertensives (p < 0.001). In hypertensives, attended BP was higher than unattended BP regardless of age, smoking habit, obesity or controlled BP status but it was similar to unattended in diabetic patients. In normotensive individuals, attended BP was higher than unattended BP in older (p = 0.04), non-smoker (p = 0.002) and non-diabetic (p = 0.02) subjects. Finally, unattended BP was important for treatment decisions only in a small group of non-diabetic hypertensive patients (7%) whose unattended BP was controlled while attended BP was uncontrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

Unattended BP was lower than attended BP in the majority of hypertensive patients. However, it was useful only in a small percentage of non diabetic hypertensive patients in order to take appropriate treatment plan decisions.

Multiple Modern Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement and the 2018 European Society of Hypertesion Guidelines

The new international guidelines on hypertension management have been issued in the past few years. The AHA (2017) and ESH (2018) Guidelines are similar in many key aspects. However, they differ substantially in the area of blood pressure (BP) measurement methodology. In this article, we aim to explain the ESC Guidelines position, specifically the conservative BP thresholds and a wider use of ambulatory BP measurement methods. In our opinion, the main reason behind this position is the introduction and a relatively widespread use of automatic office BP measurement (AOBP). On one hand, this method has questioned the results of the SPRINT trial – the key evidence source for the AHA Guidelines. On the other hand, AOBP has challenged the concept of “traditional office BP measurement”. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the current multiplicity of BP measurement methods and respective threshold values recommended for each method. It is essential to perform the office BP measurement correctly and thoroughly. Throughout all stages of the hypertensive patient management (diagnosis, antihypertensive treatment choice, and long-term observation), the use of out-of-clinic BP measurement is strongly advisable.

Determination of optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated measurements in subjects with cardiovascular disease-Analysis of a SPRINT trial subpopulation

Automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is recommended for diagnosing hypertension; however, optimal treatment targets using this method are not established. Discrepancies between automated and office measurements of blood pressure have been described, producing uncertainty regarding the use of AOBPM in clinical practice. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results improved our understanding of target AOBPM systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels; however, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) targets remain unknown. Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal on-treatment DBP range. The analysis was performed on the participants of the SPRINT trial who had hypertension and prior cardiovascular disease. We analyzed the data of 1470 participants (mean age 70.3 ± 9.3 years, 24.1% female) selected from the SPRINT trial database of National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. The mean achieved SBP and DBP were 127.9 ± 10.7 and 68.3 ± 9.4 mm Hg, respectively. Most of the participants (57.4%) had a DBP lower than 70 mm Hg, while only 11.7% had DPB ≥80 mm Hg. Clinical composite endpoint was defined as myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes. There were 159 (10.8%) clinical endpoint events. The participants with on-treatment AOBPM DBP range of 68.6-78.6 mm Hg showed the lowest hazard risk of a clinical composite endpoint. These results correspond to the office DBP range of 70-80 mm Hg recommended in ESC guidelines. This is the first attempt to determine the range of optimal DBP values using population-based AOBPM in patients with prior cardiovascular disease.

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.

Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods

There is increasing interest in unattended automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurement, which gives lower blood pressure values than the conventional auscultatory OBP. Whether unattended automated OBP differs from standardized attended automated OBP performed using the same device and measurement protocol remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies (aggregate data) comparing unattended vs attended automated OBP using the same device and measurement protocol (conditions, number of measurements, visits) was performed. Ten eligible studies (n = 1004, weighted age 60.8 ± 4.2 [SD] years, 55% males) were analyzed. Unattended OBP (pooled systolic/diastolic 133.9 [95% CI: 129.7, 138]/80.6 [95% CI: 77, 84.2] mm Hg) did not differ from attended OBP (135.3 [95% CI: 130.9, 139.6]/81 [95% CI: 77.6, 84.3] mm Hg); pooled systolic OBP difference -1.3, 95% CI: -4.3, 1.7 mm Hg and diastolic -0.4, 95% CI: -1.2, 0.3 mm Hg. Nine of ten studies achieved high quality score and no publication bias was identified. Meta-regression analysis did not reveal any effect of age, gender, or attended systolic OBP on the unattended-attended systolic OBP difference (P = NS for all). However, there was a trend toward higher attended than unattended OBP at higher OBP levels. These data suggest that, when the same device and measurement protocol are used, attended automated OBP provides similar blood pressure values as unattended automated OBP. Although unattended automated OBP is theoretically advantageous as it ensures that standardized conditions and measurement protocol are used, attended automated OBP, if carefully performed, appears to be a reasonable and practical alternative.

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.

Hypertension Canada's 2018 Guidelines for Diagnosis, Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Hypertension in Adults and Children

Hypertension Canada provides annually updated, evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. This year, the adult and pediatric guidelines are combined in one document. The new 2018 pregnancy-specific hypertension guidelines are published separately. For 2018, 5 new guidelines are introduced, and 1 existing guideline on the blood pressure thresholds and targets in the setting of thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke is revised. The use of validated wrist devices for the estimation of blood pressure in individuals with large arm circumference is now included. Guidance is provided for the follow-up measurements of blood pressure, with the use of standardized methods and electronic (oscillometric) upper arm devices in individuals with hypertension, and either ambulatory blood pressure monitoring or home blood pressure monitoring in individuals with white coat effect. We specify that all individuals with hypertension should have an assessment of global cardiovascular risk to promote health behaviours that lower blood pressure. Finally, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor combination should be used in place of either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in individuals with heart failure (with ejection fraction < 40%) who are symptomatic despite appropriate doses of guideline-directed heart failure therapies. The specific evidence and rationale underlying each of these guidelines are discussed.