Diagnosis of true uncontrolled hypertension using both home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using out-of-office blood pressure measurements

The authors developed and validated a diagnostic algorithm using the optimal upper and lower cut‐off values of office and home BP at which ambulatory BP measurements need to be applied. Patients presenting with high BP (≥140/90 mm Hg) at the outpatient clinic were referred to measure office, home, and ambulatory BP. Office and home BP were divided into hypertension, intermediate (requiring diagnosis using ambulatory BP), and normotension zones. The upper and lower BP cut‐off levels of intermediate zone were determined corresponding to a level of 95% specificity and 95% sensitivity for detecting daytime ambulatory hypertension by using the receiver operator characteristic curve. A diagnostic algorithm using three methods, OBP‐ABP: office BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if office BP is intermediate zone; OBP‐HBP‐ABP: office BP, subsequent home BP measurement if office BP is within intermediate zone and subsequent ambulatory BP measurement if home BP is within intermediate zone; and HBP‐ABP: home BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if home BP is within intermediate zone, were developed and validated. In the development population (n = 256), the developed algorithm yielded better diagnostic accuracies than 75.8% (95%CI 70.1–80.9) for office BP alone and 76.2% (95%CI 70.5–81.3) for home BP alone as follows: 96.5% (95%CI: 93.4–98.4) for OBP‐ABP, 93.4% (95%CI: 89.6–96.1) for OBP‐HBP‐ABP, and 94.9% (95%CI: 91.5–97.3%) for HBP‐ABP.  In the validation population (n = 399), the developed algorithm showed similarly improved diagnostic accuracy. The developed algorithm applying ambulatory BP measurement to the intermediate zone of office and home BP improves the diagnostic accuracy for hypertension.

Number of Measurements Needed to Obtain a Reliable Estimate of Home Blood Pressure: Results From the Improving the Detection of Hypertension Study

Background Obtaining out-of-clinic blood pressure ( BP ) measurements to confirm a diagnosis of hypertension is recommended before initiating treatment. There are few empiric data available on the number of measurements required to reliably estimate BP on home BP monitoring ( HBPM ). Methods and Results We analyzed data from 316 community-dwelling adults not taking antihypertensive medication from the IDH (Improving the Detection of Hypertension) study who performed HBPM for 14 days. The reliability of home BP measurements was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and as the percentage of participants with an absolute difference in home BP <10 mm Hg between weeks. The reliability of home hypertension status was assessed by the κ statistic. In the IDH study, 13.6% of participants had clinic hypertension and 18.0% had home hypertension. Mean home systolic and diastolic BP exhibited excellent reliability and sufficient agreement using the average of 2 morning and 2 evening BP readings for a minimum of 2 days of HBPM and a single morning and single evening or 2 morning BP readings for a minimum of 3 days. For diagnosing home hypertension, there was good agreement with a minimum of 3 days of HBPM using the average of 2 morning and 2 evening measurements or a single morning and single evening BP reading. A greater number of days was required for the other HBPM strategies. Conclusions Using the average of morning and evening readings, 3 days of HBPM are needed to reliably estimate mean home BP and diagnose out-of-clinic hypertension.

Validity of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in daily primary healthcare practice in France

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to assess 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) validity in daily primary healthcare practice in France.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An observational, longitudinal, prospective, multicenter study was performed in the Burgundy region, France. Participants were patients who had been prescribed ABPM by their general practitioner (GP), whatever its indication. ABPM was performed by employees of the healthcare providers group, which is publicly funded. The validity of ABPM was established according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria. GPs interpretation of the ABPM results was collected and compared with the ESC recommendations. Determinants of ABPM validity were identified using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among the 531 patients included, 357 (67.23%) had a valid ABPM measurement. Multivariate analyses showed that ABPM validity was associated with nonmanual worker status [odds ratio (OR)=1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-1.23], participant's age of at least 65 years (OR=0.88; 95% CI=0.81-0.95) and participant's BMI above 30 kg/m (OR=0.90; 95% CI=0.81-0.99). GPs' interpretation of ABPM results was consistent with the ESC recommendation in 508 (95.67%) cases.

CONCLUSION

ABPM is feasible in daily primary healthcare practice in the studied condition, that is to say relying on trained employees. GPs should be careful when prescribing ABPM to patients aged 65 years and older, to those with BMI over 30 or to manual workers.

Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement

DESCRIPTION

Update of the 2007 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reaffirmation recommendation statement on screening for high blood pressure in adults.

METHODS

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of different methods for confirming a diagnosis of hypertension after initial screening and the optimal rescreening interval for diagnosing hypertension.

POPULATION

This recommendation applies to adults aged 18 years or older without known hypertension.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends screening for high blood pressure in adults aged 18 years or older. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends obtaining measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment.

The complexity of masked hypertension: diagnostic and management challenges

Masked hypertension, defined as discordant in-office normotension versus out-of-office hypertension, is present in approximately 10 % to 40 % of patients not receiving antihypertensive treatment. Not only are persons with prehypertension more likely to have masked hypertension, but they also frequently develop target organ damage before transitioning to established sustained hypertension. Moreover, the percentage of persons with masked hypertension increases in the presence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or chronic renal failure. The gold standard for diagnosing masked hypertension is the 24-hour ambulatory BP monitor (ABPM), but home BP monitoring (HBPM) has also been a useful alternative procedure. Importantly, initiating antihypertensive treatment exclusively with the use of in-office BP monitoring may result in almost one-third of patients remaining with high-risk masked uncontrolled hypertension, which underscores the importance of HBPM and ABPM as supplements to in-office BP monitoring for the effective treatment of hypertension.

Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of blood pressure screening methods with consideration of rescreening intervals: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is the largest contributing risk factor to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

PURPOSE

To update a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for high BP in adults and to summarize evidence on rescreening intervals and diagnostic and predictive accuracy of different BP methods for cardiovascular events.

DATA SOURCES

Selected databases searched through 24 February 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

Fair- and good-quality trials and diagnostic accuracy and cohort studies conducted in adults and published in English.

DATA EXTRACTION

One investigator abstracted data, and a second checked for accuracy. Study quality was dual-reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) predicted long-term cardiovascular outcomes independently of office BP (hazard ratio range, 1.28 to 1.40, in 11 studies). Across 27 studies, 35% to 95% of persons with an elevated BP at screening remained hypertensive after nonoffice confirmatory testing. Cardiovascular outcomes in persons who were normotensive after confirmatory testing (isolated clinic hypertension) were similar to outcomes in those who were normotensive at screening. In 40 studies, hypertension incidence after rescreening varied considerably at each yearly interval up to 6 years. Intrastudy comparisons showed at least 2-fold higher incidence in older adults, those with high-normal BP, overweight and obese persons, and African Americans.

LIMITATION

Few diagnostic accuracy studies of office BP methods and protocols in untreated adults.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supports ABPM as the reference standard for confirming elevated office BP screening results to avoid misdiagnosis and overtreatment of persons with isolated clinic hypertension. Persons with BP in the high-normal range, older persons, those with an above-normal body mass index, and African Americans are at higher risk for hypertension on rescreening within 6 years than are persons without these risk factors.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.