Comparison of Optimal Diagnostic Thresholds of Hypertension With Home Blood Pressure Monitoring and 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

Accuracy of screening strategies for masked hypertension: a large-scale nationwide study based on home blood pressure monitoring

This study compared the ability of guideline-proposed office blood pressure (OBP) screening thresholds [European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines: 130/85 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines: 120/75 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg] and novel screening scores to identify normotensive individuals at high risk of having masked hypertension (MH) in an office setting. We cross-sectionally evaluated untreated participants with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg (n = 22,266) and an OBP < 130/80 mmHg (n = 10,005) who underwent home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) (derivation cohort) from 686 Brazilian sites. MH was defined according to criteria suggested by the ESH (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 135/85 mmHg), Brazilian Society of Cardiology (BSC) (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg) and ACC/AHA (OBP < 130/80 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg). Scores were generated from multivariable logistic regression coefficients between MH and clinical variables (OBP, age, sex, and BMI). Considering the ESH, BSC, and ACC/AHA criteria, 17.2%, 38.5%, and 21.2% of the participants had MH, respectively. Guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds yielded area under curve (AUC) values of 0.640 (for ESH criteria), 0.641 (for BSC criteria), and 0.619 (for ACC/AHA criteria) for predicting MH, while scores presented as continuous variables or quartiles yielded AUC values of 0.700 and 0.688 (for ESH criteria), 0.720 and 0.709 (for BSC criteria), and 0.671 and 0.661 (for ACC/AHA criteria), respectively. Further analyses performed with alternative untreated participants (validation cohort; n = 2807 with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; n = 1269 with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg) yielded similar AUC values. In conclusion, the accuracy of guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds in identifying individuals at high risk of having MH in an office setting is limited and is inferior to that yielded by scores derived from simple clinical variables.

Smartphone Application-Assisted Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Compared With Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Hypertension: the AMUSE-BP Study

The development of automated, smartphone application (app)-assisted home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) allows for standardized measurement of blood pressure (BP) at home. The aim of this study was to evaluate the (diagnostic) agreement between app-assisted HBPM, automated office BP (OBP), and the reference standard 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

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.

The impact of changing home blood pressure monitoring cutoff from 135/85 to 130/80 mmHg on hypertension phenotypes

This study investigated the impact of changing abnormal home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) cutoff from 135/85 to 130/80 mmHg on the prevalence of hypertension phenotypes, considering an abnormal office blood pressure cutoff of 140/90 mmHg. We evaluated 57 768 individuals (26 876 untreated and 30 892 treated with antihypertensive medications) from 719 Brazilian centers who performed HBPM. Changing the HBPM cutoff was associated with increases in masked (from 10% to 22%) and sustained (from 27% to 35%) hypertension, and decreases in white‐coat hypertension (from 16% to 7%) and normotension (from 47% to 36%) among untreated participants, and increases in masked (from 11% to 22%) and sustained (from 29% to 36%) uncontrolled hypertension, and decreases in white‐coat uncontrolled hypertension (from 15% to 8%) and controlled hypertension (from 45% to 34%) among treated participants. In conclusion, adoption of an abnormal HBPM cutoff of 130/80 mmHg markedly increased the prevalence of out‐of‐office hypertension and uncontrolled hypertension phenotypes.

Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model

The 2011 NICE hypertension guideline (CG127) undertook a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of different blood pressure (BP) assessment methods to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension. The guideline also undertook a cost-utility analysis exploring the cost-effectiveness of the monitoring methods. A new systematic review was undertaken as part of the 2019 NICE hypertension guideline update (NG136). BP monitoring methods compared included Ambulatory BP, Clinic BP and Home BP. Ambulatory BP was the reference standard. The economic model from the 2011 guideline was updated with this new accuracy data. Home BP was more sensitive and specific than Clinic BP. Specificity improved more than sensitivity since the 2011 review. A higher specificity translates into fewer people requiring unnecessary treatment. A key interest was to compare Home BP and Ambulatory BP, and whether any improvement in Home BP accuracy would change the model results. Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in all age and sex subgroups. In all subgroups, Ambulatory BP was associated with lower costs than Clinic BP and Home BP. In all except one subgroup (females aged 40), Ambulatory BP was dominant. However, Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in 40-year-old females as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Home BP versus Ambulatory BP was above the NICE £20,000 threshold. The new systematic review showed that the accuracy of both Clinic BP and Home BP has increased. However, Ambulatory BP remains the most cost-effective option to confirm a diagnosis of hypertension in all subgroups evaluated.

Screening for Hypertension in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and can be modified through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements in adults, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for effectiveness of screening; accuracy studies for screening and confirmatory measurements (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard); RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies and observational studies for harms of screening and confirmation.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; meta-analyses and qualitative syntheses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality; cardiovascular events; quality of life; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values; harms of screening.

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies (N = 215 534) were identified in this systematic review. One cluster RCT (n = 140 642) of a multicomponent intervention including hypertension screening reported fewer annual cardiovascular-related hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference, 3.02 per 1000 people; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n = 11 309) of initial office-based blood pressure screening showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (n = 57 128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of 8 office-based confirmation studies (n = 53 183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66). Meta-analysis of 4 home-based confirmation studies (n = 1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). Thirteen studies (n = 5150) suggested that screening was associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress; evidence on absenteeism was mixed. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement was associated with temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.

Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, however it might have a problem detecting white coat hypertension (WCHT) and masked hypertension (MHT). Home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) may be an alternative, but its diagnostic performance is inconclusive relative to CBPM. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to estimate the performance of CBPM and HBPM compared with ambulatory blood pressure measurement(ABPM) and to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT.

METHODS

Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were searched up to 23rd January 2020. Studies having diagnostic tests as CBPM or HBPM with reference standard as ABPM, reporting sensitivity and specificity of both tests and/or proportion of WCHT or MHT were eligible. Diagnostic performance of CBPM and HBPM were pooled using bivariate mixed-effect regression model. Random effect model was applied to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of CBPM, when using 24-h ABPM as the reference standard, were 74% (95% CI: 65-82%), 79% (95% CI: 69%, 87%), and 11.11 (95% CI: 6.82, 14.20), respectively. Pooled prevalence of WCHT and MHT were 0.24 (95% CI 0.19, 0.29) and 0.29 (95% CI 0.20, 0.38). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of HBPM were 71% (95% CI 61%, 80%), 82% (95% CI 77%, 87%), and 11.60 (95% CI 8.98, 15.13), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic performances of HBPM were slightly higher than CBPM. However, the prevalence of MHT was high in negative CBPM and some persons with normal HBPM had elevated BP from 24-h ABPM. Therefore, ABPM is still necessary for confirming the diagnosis of HT.

Characteristics of Individuals with Disagreement between Home and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements for the Diagnosis of Hypertension

Home and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements are recommended for the diagnosis of hypertension. However, the clinical characteristics of individuals showing a diagnostic disagreement between their home and ambulatory BP measurements are unclear. Of the 470 individuals who were not on antihypertensive drug treatment with a BP ≥140/90 mmHg at an outpatient clinic, 399 who had valid office, home, and ambulatory BP results were included. Hypertension was diagnosed based on an average home BP ≥135/85 mmHg and/or an average daytime ambulatory BP ≥135/85 mmHg. The participants were divided into three groups: Agree-NT (home and ambulatory BP normotension), Disagree (home BP normotension and ambulatory BP hypertension, or home BP normotension and ambulatory BP hypertension), and Agree-HT (home and ambulatory BP hypertension). Eighty-four individuals (21.1%) were classified as the Disagree group. The mean serum creatinine, triglycerides, and electrocardiogram voltage in the Disagree group were intermediate between those observed in the Agree-NT and the Agree-HT group. In the Disagree group, the mean levels of office and home diastolic BP, all of the components of ambulatory BP, the aortic systolic BP, and the BP variabilities were found to be intermediate between those of the Agree-NT and the Agree-HT groups. These results indicate that individuals showing a diagnostic disagreement between their home and ambulatory BP may have cardiovascular risks that are intermediate between those with sustained home and ambulatory normotension and hypertension.

What matters the adherence with BP 24-hr self-monitoring wearable device among hypertensive patients? A population-based survey

Wearable mobile health (mHealth) technologies are a convenient and cost-effective community-based intervention to improve management of hypertension in resource-limited populations. This study was designed to evaluate user characteristics of blood pressure (BP) wearable technology among a community-based population in a rural area of China. During the period of April through July 2018, a self-monitoring intervention program for hypertension control was implemented in a remote area of central China. Participants completed a cross-sectional survey which included demographic characteristics, Technology Fluency, the Compliance of Hypertensive Patients' Scale, and the Health-related Quality of Life Survey. Participants were given a wearable BP-monitoring device which wirelessly uploaded data and monitored for 1 month. Participants (n = 317) were 64.57 years (SD = 11.68), 53.94% were male. During the 30-day monitoring, 52.68% of the sample uploaded BP wristband data daily were identified as "BP device users." No differences existed between device users and nonusers related to cardiovascular health measurements, technology fluency, and health-related quality of life. Device users were more likely to report a higher level of hypertension compliance. Individuals reporting a higher level of compliance in hypertension management are more likely to interact with a wearable BP-monitoring device than persons with lower levels of compliance. Further evaluation of mobile health systems involving a wearable device as part of a hypertension management program is needed in a resource-limited community-based setting.

Impact of 2018 ESC/ESH and 2017 ACC/AHA Hypertension Guidelines: Difference in Prevalence of White-Coat and Masked Hypertension

Our study evaluated whether there were differences in the prevalence of white-coat hypertension (WH) and masked hypertension (MH) based on the 2018 ESC/ESH and 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines in Korea. The motivation was the lowering of the diagnostic threshold for hypertension in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines. Of 319 participants without antihypertensive drug history and with suspected hypertension based on outpatient clinic blood pressure (BP) measured by physicians, 263 participants (51.6 ± 9.6 years; 125 men) who had valid research-grade office BP and 24-h ambulatory BP measurements were enrolled. WH prevalence based on daytime ambulatory BP among normotensive individuals was lower with the ESC/ESH guidelines than the ACC/AHA guidelines (29.0% vs. 71.4%, p < 0.001). However, MH prevalence based on daytime ambulatory BP among hypertensive individuals was higher based on the ESC/ESH guidelines (21.6% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). Seventy percent of WH cases (2017 ACC/AHA guidelines) and 95.2% of MH cases (2018 ESC/ESH guidelines) occurred in individuals with systolic BP of 130–139 mmHg and/or diastolic BP of 80–89 mmHg. The diagnostic threshold of the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines yielded a higher prevalence of WH compared to that of the 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines. However, the prevalence of MH was higher with the 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines than with the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines. The high prevalence of WH and MH in people with a systolic BP of 130–139 mmHg or diastolic BP of 80–89 mmHg suggests the need for a more active out-of-office BP measurement in this patient group.

Implementing Home Blood Pressure Monitoring into Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review data supporting the use of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and provide practical guidance to clinicians wishing to incorporate HBPM into their practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

HBPM more accurately reflects the risk of cardiovascular events than office blood pressure measurement. In addition, there is high-quality evidence that HBPM combined with clinical support improves blood pressure control. Therefore, HBPM is increasingly recommended by guidelines to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and evaluate the efficacy of blood pressure-lowering medications. Nevertheless, HBPM use remains low due to barriers from the patient, clinician, and healthcare system level. Understanding these barriers is crucial for developing strategies to effectively implement HBPM into routine clinical practice. HBPM is a valuable adjunct to office blood pressure measurement for diagnosing hypertension and guiding antihypertensive therapy. Following recommended best practices can facilitate the successful implementation of HBPM and impact how hypertension is managed in the primary care setting.

Blood pressure differences between home monitoring and daytime ambulatory values and their reproducibility in treated hypertensive stroke and TIA patients

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend ambulatory or home blood pressure monitoring to improve hypertension diagnosis and monitoring. Both these methods are ascribed the same threshold values, but whether they produce similar results has not been established in certain patient groups.

METHODS

Adults with mild/moderate stroke or transient ischemic attack (N = 80) completed 2 sets of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure values from contemporaneous measurements were compared, and the limits of agreement were assessed. Exploratory analyses for predictive factors of any difference were conducted.

RESULTS

Daytime ambulatory blood pressure values were consistently lower than home values, the mean difference in systolic blood pressure for initial ambulatory versus first home monitoring was -6.6 ± 13.5 mm Hg (P≤.001), and final ambulatory versus second home monitoring was -7.1 ± 11.0mm Hg (P≤.001). Mean diastolic blood pressure differences were -2.1 ± 8.5mm Hg (P=.03) and -2.0 ± 7.2mm Hg (P=.02). Limits of agreement for systolic blood pressure were -33.0 to 19.9mm Hg and -28.7 to 14.5mm Hg for the 2 comparisons and for DBP were -18.8 to 14.5mm Hg and -16.1 to 12.2mm Hg, respectively. The individual mean change in systolic blood pressure difference was 11.0 ± 8.3mm Hg across the 2 comparisons. No predictive factors for these differences were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were significantly lower than home monitored values at both time points. Differences between the 2 methods were not reproducible for individuals. Using the same threshold value for both out-of-office measurement methods may not be appropriate in patients with cerebrovascular disease.