[Measurement of blood pressure in consultation and automated mesurement (BPTru(®)) to evaluate the white coat effect]

Sources of automatic office blood pressure measurement error: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Accurate and reliable blood pressure (BP) measurement is important for the prevention and treatment of hypertension. The oscillometric-based automatic office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is widely used in hospitals and clinics, but measurement errors are common in BP measurements. There is a lack of systematic review of the sources of measurement errors.

APPROACH

A systematic review of all existing research on sources of AOBPM errors. A search strategy was designed in six online databases, and all the literature published before October 2021 was selected. Those studies that used the AOBPM device to measure BP from the upper arm of subjects were included.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 1365 studies were screened, and 224 studies were included in this final review. They investigated 22 common error sources with clinical AOBPM. Regarding the causes of BP errors, this review divided them into the following categories: the activities before measurement, patient's factors, measurement environment, measurement procedure, and device settings. 13 sources caused increased systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP), 2 sources caused the decrease in SBP and DBP, only 1 source had no significant effect on BPs, and the other errors had a non-uniform effect (either increase or decrease in BPs). The error ranges for SBP and DBP were -14 to 33 mmHg and -6 to 19 mmHg, respectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

The measurement accuracy of AOBPM is susceptible to the influence of measurement factors. Interpreting BP readings need to be treated with caution in clinical measurements. This review made comprehensive evidence for the need for standardized BP measurements and provided guidance for clinical practitioners when measuring BP with AOBPM devices.

Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings With Other Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement for Identifying Patients With Possible Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement involves recording several blood pressure (BP) readings using a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer with the patient resting alone in a quiet place. Although several studies have shown AOBP measurement to be more accurate than routine office BP measurement and not subject to a "white coat effect," the cumulative evidence has not yet been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between AOBP and office BP readings measured in routine clinical practice and in research studies, and ambulatory BP recorded during awake hours, as the latter is a standard for predicting future cardiovascular events.

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from 2003 to April 25, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies on systolic and diastolic BP measurement by AOBP in comparison with awake ambulatory BP, routine office BP, and research BP measurements were included if they contained 30 patients or more.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Study characteristics were abstracted independently and random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pooled mean differences (95% CI) of systolic and diastolic BP between types of BP measurement.

RESULTS

Data were compiled from 31 articles comprising 9279 participants (4736 men and 4543 women). In samples with systolic AOBP of 130 mm Hg or more, routine office and research systolic BP readings were substantially higher than AOBP readings, with a pooled mean difference of 14.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 11.8-17.2 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 94.3%; P < .001) for routine office systolic BP readings and 7.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-9.1 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 85.7%; P < .001) for research systolic BP readings. Systolic awake ambulatory BP and AOBP readings were similar, with a pooled mean difference of 0.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7 mm Hg; n = 19; I2 = 90%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Automated office blood pressure readings, only when recorded properly with the patient sitting alone in a quiet place, are more accurate than office BP readings in routine clinical practice and are similar to awake ambulatory BP readings, with mean AOBP being devoid of any white coat effect. There has been some reluctance among physicians to adopt this technique because of uncertainty about its advantages compared with more traditional methods of recording BP during an office visit. Based on the evidence, AOBP should now be the preferred method for recording BP in routine clinical practice.

Validity and applicability of a new recording method for hypertension

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Blood pressure measurement methods and conditions are determinants of hypertension diagnosis. A recent British guideline recommends systematic 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. However, these devices are not available at all health centers and they can only be used by 1 patient per day. The aim of this study was to test a new blood pressure recording method to see if it gave the same diagnostic results as 24-h blood pressure monitoring.

METHODS

One-hour blood pressure monitoring under routine clinical practice conditions was compared with standard method of day time recording by analyzing the coefficient of correlation and Bland-Altman plots. The Kappa index was used to calculate degree of agreement. Method sensitivity and specificity were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 102 participants, 89 (87.3%) obtained the same diagnosis regardless of method, with high between-method agreement (κ= 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.91). We observed robust correlations between diastolic (r=0.85) and systolic blood pressure (r=0.76) readings. Sensitivity and specificity for the new method for diagnosing white coat hypertension were 85.2% (95% confidence interval 67.5%-94.1%) and 92% (95% confidence interval, 83.6%-96.3%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

One-hour blood pressure monitoring is a valid and reliable method for diagnosing hypertension and for classifying hypertension subpopulations, especially in white coat hypertension and refractory hypertension. This also leads to a more productive use of monitoring instruments.