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

In-office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement

Accurate blood pressure measurement is the key procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. In-office and out-of-office blood pressure measurements both have advantages and weak points, and multifaceted blood pressure information in individuals should be appropriately obtained and assessed. Validation of blood pressure measurement devices has long been an important issue, and several consortiums have emerged to try address it. Clinical guidelines should meet the demands of the region in which they are applied, and out-of-office measurements have been widely stated and recommended in the recently published guidelines worldwide. Appropriate assessment of blood pressure should be performed routinely in order to provide timely and accurate evidence regarding hypertension under any situation, including an unexpected pandemic.

Comparison of Office Blood Pressure, Automated Unattended Office Blood Pressure, Home Blood Pressure, and 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have reported differences of blood pressure (BP) according to BP measurement methods, studies in Korean population were scarce. This study aimed to compare BP differences according to different BP measurement methods and assess hypertension phenotype.

METHODS

This prospective study recruited 183 individuals (mean 55.9 years; 51.4% males). The BP measurements included office BP (auscultatory attended office BP [ausAOBP], automated attended office BP [aAOBP], and automated unattended office BP [aUAOBP]) and out-of-office BP (home BP [HBP] and ambulatory BP [ABP]) measurements taken within one week of each other.

RESULTS

The mean systolic/diastolic BP differences between ausAOBP and other BPs according to different BP measurement methods were 3.5/2.3 mmHg for aAOBP; 6.1/2.9 mmHg for aUAOBP; 15.0/7.3 mmHg for daytime ABP; and 10.6/3.4 mmHg for average HBP. The increasing disparity between ausAOBP and other BPs in multivariable regression analysis was significantly associated with increasing BP. The prevalence of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension in 107 individuals not taking antihypertensive medication was 25.4-26.8% and 30.6-33.3% based on ausAOBP, daytime ABP, and average HBP, respectively. The prevalence of white-coat uncontrolled hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension in 76 of those taking antihypertensive medication was 31.7-34.1% and 17.1-37.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a large disparity between office BP and out-of-office BP which became more pronounced when office BP by auscultation increased, suggesting that various BP measurement methods should be used to more accurately assess BP status.

Quality is not an act, it is a habit-Aristotle

To measure blood pressure precisely and make the data comparable among facilities, measurement methods and devices must be standardized. Since the Minamata Convention on Mercury, there is no metrological standard for sphygmomanometers. The current validation methods recommended by non-profit organizations in Japan, the US, and European Union countries are not necessarily applicable to the clinical setting, and no protocol for daily or routine performance of quality control has been defined. In addition, recent rapid technological advances have enabled monitoring blood pressure at home with wearable devices or without a cuff by using a smartphone app. A clinically relevant validation method for this recent technology is not available. The importance of out-of-office blood pressure measurement is highlighted by guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, but an appropriate protocol for validating a device is required.

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.

Associations of office brachial blood pressure, office central blood pressure, and home brachial blood pressure with arterial stiffness

Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is necessary for the evaluation and treatment of hypertension to prevent the progression of subclinical vascular disease, including arterial stiffness. We investigated the associations between brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV), a measure of arterial stiffness, and each of office brachial systolic BP (SBP) with and without an observer present (attended or unattended office brachial SBP), attended or unattended office central SBP, and home brachial SBPs (specifically, the means of morning, evening, or morning-evening home brachial SBP) in patients being treated for hypertension. Measurements were performed among 70 adults (mean age, 67.0 ± 9.4 years; women, 51.4%) with a mean attended office brachial SBP of 127.6 ± 14.5 mmHg and mean baPWV of 16.3 ± 2.8 m/s. Univariate analysis showed that higher attended office brachial SBP, morning home brachial SBP, and morning-evening home brachial SBP were each statistically significantly associated with higher baPWV (r = 0.25, P = 0.04; r = 0.37, P = 0.002; and r = 0.32, P = 0.006, respectively). Multiple linear regression analysis with adjustments for traditional cardiovascular risk factors showed that only morning home brachial SBP was statistically significantly associated with baPWV [β = 0.06, 95% confidence interval (0.01-0.11), P = 0.02). In conclusion, higher morning home brachial SBP - but none of the office-measured SBP values - was associated with arterial stiffness.

Differences of blood pressure measured at clinic versus at home in the morning and in the evening in Europe and Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Numerous studies have indicated that there might be great differences among different populations in Europe and Asia in terms of home morning and evening blood pressure (BP). Thus, the authors performed a systematic review to determine the quantitative differences of BP measured at clinic versus at home in the morning and in the evening in Europe and Asia. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched up to October 2021. Studies that compared clinic BP with home morning and (or) home evening BP in European and Asian populations were included. A random effect model was applied to pool the differences between clinic BP and home morning/evening BP. Thirty‐five studies, for a total of 49 432 patients, were included in this meta‐analysis. Mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) values were significantly higher than home morning SBP values by 3.79 mmHg (95% CI, 2.77–4.80). The differences were much larger in Europe [(6.53 mmHg (95% CI, 4.10–8.97)] than in Asia [(2.70 mmHg (95% CI, 1.74–3.66)], and the region was a significant predictor for the differences. Mean clinic SBP values were also significantly higher than home evening SBP values by 6.59 mmHg (95% CI, 4.98–8.21). The differences were much smaller in Europe [5.85 mmHg (95% CI, 3.24–8.45)] than in Asia [7.13 mmHg (95% CI, 4.92–9.35)], while age and clinic SBP might contribute to it. Our findings showed that the difference between clinic and home morning SBP was much larger in European than Asian populations, whereas the difference between clinic and home evening SBP was the opposite. The differing characteristics of the region, ethnic, age, and clinic BP might explain the diversities.

Prediction Models for the 5- and 10-Year Incidence of Home Morning Hypertension: The Ohasama Study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to develop risk prediction models for new-onset home morning hypertension.

METHODS

We followed up 978 participants without home hypertension in the general population of Ohasama, Japan (men: 30.1%, age: 53.3 years). The participants were divided into derivation (n = 489) and validation (n = 489) cohorts by their residential area. The C-statistics and calibration plots were assessed after the 5- or 10-year follow-up.

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort, sex, age, body mass index, smoking, office systolic blood pressure (SBP), and home SBP at baseline were selected as significant risk factors for new-onset home hypertension (≥135/85 mm Hg or the initiation of antihypertensive treatment) using the Cox model. In the validation cohort, Harrell's C-statistic for the 5-/10-year home hypertension was 0.7637 (0.7195-0.8100)/0.7308 (0.6932-0.7677), when we used the full model, which included the significant risk factors in the derivation cohort. The calibration test revealed good concordance between the observed and predicted 5-/10-year home hypertension probabilities (P ≥ 0.19); the regression slope of the observed probability on the predicted probability was 1.10/1.02, and the intercept was -0.04/0.06, respectively. A model without home SBP was also developed; for the 10-year home hypertension risk, the calibration test revealed a good concordance (P = 0.19) but Harrell's C-statistic was 0.6689 (0.6266-0.7067).

CONCLUSIONS

The full model revealed good ability to predict the 5- and 10-year home morning hypertension risk. Although the model without home SBP is acceptable, the low C-statistic implies that home BP should be measured to predict home morning hypertension precisely.

Direct comparison of the reproducibility of in-office and self-measured home blood pressures

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare short-term and long-term reproducibilities of in-office unattended blood pressure (BP), namely automated office blood pressure (AOBP), conventionally measured attended office BP, and self-measured home BP.

METHODS

A multicentre, clinical study was conducted in Japan, and 287 Japanese outpatients on antihypertensive drug medication were followed-up for 1 year.

RESULTS

The intensity of drug treatment was sustained consistently throughout the study period (defined daily doses, 1.62-1.68; P = 0.12). The mean SBP differences between baseline and 1 month later, as well as baseline and 1 year later, were less than 1.5 mmHg, whereas the standard deviations of the differences for home, AOBP, and attended office measurements for the 1-year interval were 7.7, 14.5, and 15.3 mmHg, respectively. The coefficients of variation were significantly smaller for home BP than for AOBP among all patients at both 1-month and 1-year intervals (P < 0.0001). In the 1-month interval, partial correlation coefficients of home BP (r, 0.73/0.88 for systolic/diastolic measures) were significantly higher than of conventional BP (r, 0.47/0.69). However, the correlations converged to the modest level regardless of BP information (r, 0.49-0.54/0.63-0.73) when the 1-year interval was assessed. Results were confirmatory when patients on the same drug regimen (n = 167) were analysed.

CONCLUSION

A higher reproducibility of home BP was demonstrated compared with in-office BP, including AOBP. However, the modest correlations for the 1-year interval support the importance of regular assessment of BP, regardless of in-office or home measurements for treatment of hypertension.

Intensive blood pressure treatment in coronary artery disease: implications from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

To investigate the optimal blood pressure (BP) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), we conducted subgroup analysis using SPRINT data. The study sample included 1206 participants with CAD (of whom 692 underwent coronary revascularization) and 8127 participants without CAD. Participants were randomized into two groups (systolic BP target of 140 mm Hg vs. 120 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events. After a median follow-up of 3.9 years, the hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary outcome were 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.79) and 1.05 (95% CI 0.76-1.46) among those in the non-CAD and CAD subgroups, respectively (P value for interaction 0.02). Intensive BP treatment was a protective factor for all-cause death (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96) in the CAD subgroup, compared with standard BP treatment. The HRs (95% CI) for stroke were 3.57 (1.17-10.85) and 1.03 (0.29-3.62) among those in the coronary revascularization and non-revascularization subgroups, respectively (P value for interaction 0.13). For safety events, intensive BP treatment increased the risk of hypotension (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.06-3.79) and electrolyte abnormalities (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.25-4.56) in the CAD subgroup, while the risk of serious adverse events did not increase (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88-1.20). These results suggest that positive benefits from intensive BP treatment might be attenuated in patients with CAD who are under better secondary prevention. The risk of stroke might increase at the systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg in case of coronary revascularization, although the confidence interval was wide.

Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in children

PURPOSE

We studied the performance of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAOBP) measurement in children, in relation to oscillometric office BP (OBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and eleven stable treated and untreated outpatients investigated for hypertension underwent uAOBP measurements (seated unattended in a quiet room separate from the renal clinic room, six times after a 5 min rest with the BpTRU device), and immediately before using the oscillometric device. Ambulatory 24 h blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed on the same day in a subgroup of 42 children.

RESULTS

UAOBP measurements were successful in 106 children (95%), 5 pre-school children did not tolerate to be alone in the room. The mean ± SD systolic/diastolic uAOBP, OBP and daytime ABP were 109.1 ± 14.0/70.8 ± 10.7 mmHg, 121.6 ± 16.5/77.6 ± 10.5 mmHg and 123.5 ± 11.3/73.7 ± 6.8 mmHg, respectively. Systolic/diastolic uAOBP was significantly lower than OBP by 13.6/7.6 mmHg (p < 0.0001) and lower than daytime ABP by 14.4 ± 0.5/2.9 ± 0.3 mmHg (p < 0.0001). The heart rate was not significantly different during uAOBP than during OBP measurements. On Bland Altman analysis the uAOBP underestimated OBP by a mean of 15.6 mmHg for systolic BP and by 8.6 mmHg for diastolic BP. In all 9 children with white-coat systolic hypertension uAOBP was within the normal range (<95th pc for OBP), in six of nine children with white-coat diastolic hypertension uAOBP was within the normal range however, in three of them it was elevated despite normal ABP.

CONCLUSION

uAOBP measurement is feasible in school-aged children, its values are considerably lower than OBP as well as daytime ABP and it could help with detection of white-coat systolic hypertension. The clinical applicability of uAOBP in children should be confirmed in further studies.

Comparison of Brachial Blood Pressure and Central Blood Pressure in Attended, Unattended, and Unattended Standing Situations

Central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) is an independent predictor of future cardiovascular disease. Unattended brachial SBP (bSBP) can eliminate the white-coat effect. However, unattended cSBP and unattended standing cSBP have never been reported. We aimed to compare bSBP and cSBP in attended, unattended, and unattended standing situations. We also aimed to compare the white-coat effect and unattended orthostatic BP change between bSBP and cSBP. Altogether, 104 hypertensive outpatients were included (mean age: 66.0 ± 9.8 years, 41.3% male, mean body mass index: 25.0 ± 4.5). Attended bSBP/cSBP values were 127.3 ± 15.7/119.2 ± 15.0, unattended bSBP/cSBP values were 122.7 ± 15.3/114.4 ± 15.1, and unattended standing bSBP/cSBP values were 123.6 ± 15.7/114.1 ± 14.8 mmHg (correlation coefficients/coefficients of determination between bSBP and cSBP: 0.971/0.943, 0.970/0.941, and 0.964/0.929, respectively; all p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in the white-coat effect between bSBP and cSBP (4.6 ± 5.8 vs. 4.8 ± 5.7 mmHg). Although there was no significant difference between unattended sitting SBP and unattended standing SBP in terms of both bSBP and cSBP, a numerically small but significant difference was observed in the unattended orthostatic BP change between bSBP and cSBP (0.9 ± 8.0 vs. -0.3 ± 9.0 mmHg, p = 0.002). In conclusion, significant and strong correlations were observed between bSBP and cSBP in attended, unattended, and unattended standing BP measurements. The white-coat effect on bSBP was equivalent to that on cSBP. There was a numerically small but significant difference in the unattended orthostatic BP change between bSBP and cSBP.

Antihypertensive drug effects according to the pretreatment self-measured home blood pressure: the HOMED-BP study

OBJECTIVES

To clarify whether or not the antihypertensive drug effect is proportional to the baseline pretreatment self-measured home blood pressure (HBP) in accordance with the law of initial value (Wilder's law).

DESIGN

A post-hoc analysis of a multicentre clinical trial.

SETTING

Outpatients across Japan with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

PARTICIPANTS

Among 3518 randomised participants, 2423 who self-measured HBP during the pretreatment drug-free period (10-28 days after starting fixed-dose antihypertensive monotherapy) with a mean 7.0 years follow-up were eligible.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We analysed individual HBP readings during pretreatment and monotherapy.

RESULTS

The day-to-day HBP during both the pretreatment period and monotherapy period remains almost the same throughout each period; the results were consistent, regardless of the pretreatment HBP. Following monotherapy, the reduction in the HBP increased by 2.2 mm Hg (95% CI: 1.8 to 2.5 mm Hg) per 10 mm Hg pretreatment HBP increase, up to 11.0 mm Hg (95% CI: 9.9 to 12.0 mm Hg) among patients with an HBP ≥165 mm Hg during pretreatment. Among the 1005 patients receiving low-dose monotherapy (defined daily dose: 0.5 units), the reduction peaked at 8.9-9.1 mm Hg in those with pretreatment HBP 155-164 mm Hg and ≥165 mm Hg (p=0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

According to Wilder's law, the HBP reduction due to fixed-dose monotherapy was proportional to the pretreatment HBP without any regression to the mean phenomenon. With low-dose antihypertensive drugs, however, the HBP reduction peaked in patients with a high pretreatment HBP, indicating the need for such patients to receive a sufficient amount of antihypertensive drug medication at the initial treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr), Unique identifier: C000000137.

Comparison between unattended automated office blood pressure and conventional office blood pressure under the environment of health checkup among Japanese general population

Unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement has been endorsed as the preferred in-office measurement modality in recent Canadian and American clinical practice guidelines. However, the difference between AOBP and conventional office blood pressure (CBP) under the environment of a health checkup remains unclear. We aimed to identify the clinical significance of AOBP as compared to CBP under the environment of a health checkup. There were 491 participants (333 females, mean age of 62.5 years) who were at least 20 years old, including 179 participants who were previously diagnosed with hypertension. Mean AOBPs were 131.8 ± 20.9/76.6 ± 11.7 mm Hg, and CBPs were 135.6 ± 21.6/77.3 ± 11.5 mm Hg. There was a difference of 3.9 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 0.8 mm Hg in diastolic BP between AOBP and CBP. In all participants, SBP and pulse pressure, as well as the white coat effect (WCE), increased with age. The cutoff value used was 140/90 mm Hg for CBP and 135/85 mm Hg for AOBP, and the prevalence of WCE and masked hypertension effect (MHE) was 12.4% and 14.1%, respectively. Even in a health checkup environment of the general population, there was a difference between the AOBP and CBP, and the WCE was observed more strongly in the elderly with a history of hypertension, suggesting that a combination of AOBP with CBP may be useful in detecting WCE and MHE in all clinical scenarios including health checkups, and help solve the "hypertension paradox" not only in Japan but in all over the world.

Intensive blood pressure lowering: a practical review

According to the last Hypertension guideline recommendations, it may be concluded that intensive BP lowering is only advisable in a subgroup of patients where there is a clear net benefit of targeting to lower BP goals. However, taking into account the relevance of correct BP measurement, estimates of the benefits versus the harm should be based on reliable office BP measurements and home BP measurements.

There is still debate about which BP goals are optimal in reducing morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated hypertensives and in those with associated comorbidities. In recent years, trials and meta-analyses have assessed intensive BP lowering, with some success. However, a careful examination of the results shows that current data are not easily applicable to the general hypertensive population.

This article reviews the evidence on and controversies about intensive BP lowering in general and in specific clinical situations, and the importance of obtaining reliable BP readings in patients with hypertension and comorbidities.

Comparison among research, home, and office blood pressure measurements for pregnant women: The TMM BirThree Cohort Study

Blood pressure (BP) measurements of pregnant women have been collected in offices and at home for previous research. However, it remains uncertain whether there is difference between research BP, defined as BP measured for the purpose of epidemiological research and BP measured at home or in an office. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare research BP with home and unstandardized office BP. Research, home, and office BP were measured among pregnant women who participated in the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project Birth and Three-Generation Cohort Study (TMM BirThree Cohort Study). Research BP was measured twice at our research center while the participant was seated and after resting for 1-2 minutes. Research, home, and office BP were compared and agreement among the values was assessed. Differences among research, home, and office BP values and possible factors affecting differences were analyzed. Among 656 pregnant women, the mean (± standard deviations) research systolic (S), diastolic (D) BP, home SBP, home DBP office SBP, and office DBP were 103.8 ± 8.5, 61.8 ± 7.3, 104.4 ± 9.2, 61.2 ± 6.8, 110.5 ± 10.8, and 63.8 ± 8.7mmHg, respectively. Research SBP value was lower than home value (P = .0072; difference between mean research and home BP: -0.61 ± 7.8 mmHg). Research SBP and DBP values were lower than office values (P < .0001 for both SBP and DBP; means ± standard deviations of differences between research and office BP: 6.7 ± 10.1 and 2.0 ± 8.5 mmHg for SBP and DBP, respectively). In conclusion, when research BP is measured under conditions controlled, research BP can give close values to home BP for pregnant women.

Differences between home blood pressure and strictly measured office blood pressure and their determinants in Japanese men

Conventional office blood pressure (OBP) and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements are often inconsistent. The purpose of this research was (1) to test whether strictly measured OBP values with sufficient rest time before measurement (st-OBP) is comparable to HBP at the population level and (2) to ascertain whether there are particular determinants for the difference between HBP and st-OBP at the individual level. Data from a population-based group of 1056 men aged 40-79 years were analyzed. After a five-min rest, st-OBP was measured twice. HBP was measured after a 2-min rest every morning for seven consecutive days. To determine factors related to ΔSBP (HBP minus st-OBP measurements), multiple linear regression analyses and analyses of covariance were performed. While st-OBP and HBP were comparable (136.5 vs. 137.2 mmHg) at the population level, ΔSBP varied with a standard deviation of 13.5 mmHg. Smoking was associated with a larger ΔSBP regardless of antihypertensive usage, and BMI was associated with a larger ΔSBP in participants using antihypertensive drugs. The adjusted mean ΔSBP in the highest BMI tertile category was 4.6 mmHg in participants taking antihypertensive drugs. st-OBP and HBP measurements were comparable at the population level, although the distribution of ΔSBP was considerably broad. Smokers and obese men taking antihypertensive drugs had higher HBP than st-OBP, indicating that their blood pressure levels are at risk of being underestimated. Therefore, this group would benefit from the addition of HBP measurements.

Recent status of self-measured home blood pressure in the Japanese general population: a modern database on self-measured home blood pressure (MDAS)

Despite the clinical usefulness of self-measured home blood pressure (BP), reports on the characteristics of home BP have not been sufficient and have varied due to the measurement conditions in each study. We constructed a database on self-measured home BP, which included five Japanese general populations as subdivided aggregate data that were clustered and meta-analyzed according to sex, age category, and antihypertensive drug treatment at baseline (treated and untreated). The self-measured home BPs were collected after a few minutes of rest in a sitting position: (1) the morning home BP was measured within 1 h of waking, after urination, before breakfast, and before taking antihypertensive medication (if any); and (2) the evening home BP was measured just before going to bed. The pulse rate was simultaneously measured. Eligible data from 2000 onward were obtained. The morning BP was significantly higher in treated participants than in untreated people of the same age category, and the BP difference was more marked in women. Among untreated residents, home systolic/diastolic BPs measured in the morning were higher than those measured in the evening; the differences were 5.7/5.0 mmHg in women (ranges across the cohorts, 5.3-6.8/4.7-5.4 mmHg) and 7.3/7.7 mmHg in men (ranges, 6.4-8.5/7.0-8.7 mmHg). In contrast, the home pulse rate in women and men was 2.4 (range, 1.5-3.7) and 5.6 (range, 4.6-6.6) beats per minute, respectively, higher in the evening than in the morning. We demonstrated the current status of home BP and home pulse rate in relation to sex, age, and antihypertensive treatment status in the Japanese general population. The approach by which fine-clustered aggregate statistics were collected and integrated could address practical issues raised in epidemiological research settings.

Key Points of the 2019 Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension

The new 2019 Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) guidelines for the management of hypertension are now available; these update the previous guidelines published in 2014. The primary objective of the guideline is to provide all healthcare professionals with a standard management strategy and appropriate antihypertensive treatments to prevent hypertension-related target organ damage and cardiovascular events. The major changes in the new guideline relate to the definition of normal blood pressure (BP) and target BP. The terms 'normal BP' and 'high normal BP' used in the JSH 2014 guidelines are replaced with terms 'high normal BP' and 'elevated BP,' respectively. There was no change to the office BP diagnostic threshold for hypertension (140/90 mmHg). Recommended target office and home BP values for patients with hypertension aged <75 years and/or high-risk patients are <130/80 mmHg and <125/75 mmHg, respectively. Corresponding targets for elderly patients with hypertension (age≥75 years) are 140/90 and 135/85 mmHg, respectively. The goal is that these changes will contribute to reducing cardiovascular events, especially stroke and heart failure, in Japan. The dissemination of the JSH 2019 guidelines and implementation of a home BP-based approach by all general practitioners in Japan might be facilitated by digital hypertension management using health information technology.