Automated Office Blood Pressure-Incorporating SPRINT Into Clinical Practice

Cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia for untreated hypertension with comorbid insomnia disorder: The SLEEPRIGHT clinical trial

Insomnia and poor sleep are associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its precursors, including hypertension. In 2022, the American Heart Association (AHA) added inadequate sleep to its list of health behaviors that increase the risk for CVD. It remains unknown, however, whether the successful treatment of insomnia and inadequate sleep can reduce heightened CVD risk. SLEEPRIGHT is a single-site, prospective clinical trial designed to evaluate whether the successful treatment of insomnia results in improved markers of CVD risk in patients with untreated hypertension and comorbid insomnia disorder. Participants (N = 150) will undergo baseline assessments, followed by a 6-week run-in period after which they will receive cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), comprised of 6 hourly sessions with an experienced CBT-I therapist over a 6-week period. In addition to measures of insomnia severity, as well as both subjective and objective measures of sleep, the primary outcome measures are nighttime blood pressure (BP) and BP dipping assessed by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Secondary outcomes include several CVD risk biomarkers, including clinic BP, lipid profile, vascular endothelial function, arterial stiffness, and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity. Data analysis will evaluate the association between improvements in insomnia and sleep with primary and secondary CVD risk biomarker outcomes. The SLEEPRIGHT trial (ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT04009447) will utilize CBT-I, the current gold standard treatment for insomnia disorder, to evaluate whether reducing insomnia severity and improving sleep are accompanied by improved biomarkers of CVD risk in patients with untreated hypertension.

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.

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.

Comparison Between Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements and Manual Office Blood Pressure Measurements-Implications in Individual Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose of Review

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements may provide more accurate estimation of blood pressure (BP) than manual office blood pressure (MOBP) measurements. This systematic review investigated the diagnostic performance of AOBP and MOBP using ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) as reference. Several databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and China Academic Journals were searched. Data were extracted, double-checked by two investigators, and were analysed using a random effects model.

Recent Findings

A total of 26 observational studies were included. The mean systolic/diastolic BP obtained by AOBP was not significantly different from that obtained by ABPM. The sensitivity and specificity of AOBP to detect elevated BP were approximately 70%. Fewer participants had white-coat hypertension on AOBP measurement than on MOBP measurement (7% versus 14%); however, about 13% had masked hypertension on AOBP measurement. The width of the limit of agreement comparing (i) AOBP and ABPM and (ii) MOBP and ABPM was comparable.

Summary

AOBP may reduce the rate of the observed white-coat effect but undermine masked hypertension. The current recommendation, however, is limited by the absence of high-quality studies and the high heterogeneity of our results. More high-quality studies using different AOBP machines and in different population are therefore needed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11906-020-01118-1.

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.

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.

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.

Evaluation of the Omron HEM-907 automated blood pressure device: comparison with office and ambulatory blood pressure readings

Blood pressure (BP) measured in the clinic is subject to the white coat effect and does not always indicate the 'usual' BP. Ambulatory BP is the current gold standard, but remains inconvenient for routine use. Interest in automated BP, where the healthcare professional is absent from the examination room during BP measurement, is growing, as this reduces the white coat effect and yields BP values that are close to ambulatory readings. The aim of this study was to investigate how well automated office BP (AOBP), measured using the Omron HEM-907 device, compares with observed office BP (OOBP, healthcare professional remains in the examination room) and awake ambulatory BP (AABP) measurements. OOBP, AOBP and AABP were measured in 108 participants, with OOBP and AOBP measurements repeated 1 week later, following a standardised protocol. Average BP readings for visit one were 134 ± 18/77 ± 11 for OOBP, 131 ± 16/75 ± 11 for AOBP, and 133 ± 15/82 ± 12 for AABP. On both visits, automated readings were significantly lower than observed readings for both systolic and diastolic BP (P < 0.001 for both). Automated readings were also significantly lower than ambulatory readings, with a mean difference in systolic/diastolic BP of - 2 ± 11/- 7 ± 10 (P < 0.001 for both), with high correlations between the two modalities (r = 0.75 and r = 0.64, for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively, P < 0.001 for both). AOBP measured by the Omron HEM-907 is not associated with a white coat effect, unlike observed readings, and provides reproducible results and good correlations with ambulatory readings. Automated BP measured using the Omron HEM-907 is, therefore, a useful alternative to observed office readings.

Changing concepts in hypertension management

Hypertension is the most common modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and death, and lowering blood pressure with anti-hypertensive drugs reduces target organ damage and prevents cardiovascular disease outcomes. The recent trials SPRINT and HOPE-3 will lead to changes in the way we manage hypertension and impact on clinical practice guidelines. These studies also demonstrate the shift toward automated blood pressure measurements. We have reviewed these studies and others to put them in context with the guidelines that have come before and to describe how they will impact on hypertension treatment thresholds and targets, the treatment of hypertension in the elderly, and changing approaches to the management of hypertension including resistant hypertension.