Accuracy of self-monitored blood pressure for diagnosing hypertension in primary care

Changes in Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring Use in 14 States From 2019 to 2021: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SMBP) is an important out-of-office resource that is effective in improving hypertension control. Changes in SMBP use during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have not been described previously.

METHODS

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data were used to quantify changes in SMBP use between 2019 (prior COVID-19 pandemic) and 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). Fourteen states administered the SMBP module in both years. All data were self-reported from adults who participated in the BRFSS survey. We assessed the receipt of SMBP recommendations from healthcare professionals and actual use of SMBP among those with hypertension (n = 68,820). Among those who used SMBP, we assessed SMBP use at home and sharing BP readings electronically with healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

Among adults with hypertension, there was no significant changes between 2019 and 2021 in those reporting SMBP use (57.0% vs. 55.7%) or receiving recommendations from healthcare professionals to use SMBP (66.4% vs. 66.8%). However, among those who used SMBP, there were significant increases in use at home (87.7% vs. 93.5%) and sharing BP readings electronically (8.6% vs. 13.1%) from 2019 to 2021. Differences were noted by demographic characteristics and residence state.

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving a recommendation from the healthcare provider to use SMBP and actual use did not differ before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, among those who used SMBP, home use and sharing BP readings electronically with healthcare professional increased significantly, although overall sharing remained low (13.1%). Maximizing advances in virtual connections between clinical and community settings should be leveraged for improved hypertension management.

Acceptability and Adherence to Home, Kiosk, and Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement Compared to 24-H Ambulatory Monitoring

BACKGROUND

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement.

DESIGN

Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit.

MEASURES

Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed.

KEY RESULTS

Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Clinic, Home, and Kiosk Blood Pressure Measurements for Diagnosing Hypertension: a Randomized Diagnostic Study

BACKGROUND

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes.

KEY RESULTS

Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring Among Adults With Self-Reported Hypertension in 20 US States and the District of Columbia, 2019

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Achieving hypertension control requires multiple supportive inventions, including self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring. The objective of this study is to report the use of SMBP among US adults.

METHODS

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were used for this study. The 2019 survey included, for the first time, an optional SMBP module. Twenty states and the District of Columbia (N = 159,536) opted to include the module, which assessed whether participants were advised by a healthcare professional to use SMBP, and if they used SMBP monitoring. Among those using SMBP, additional questions assessed the location of SMBP monitoring and whether SMBP readings were shared with a healthcare professional.

RESULTS

Among adults in the study population, 33.9% (95% confidence interval 33.4%-34.5%) reported having hypertension (N = 66,869). Among them, nearly 70% were recommended to use SMBP by their healthcare professional and approximately 61% reported SMBP use regardless of recommendation. The most common location of SMBP was the home (85.6%). Overall, >80% shared their SMBP reading with their healthcare professional, 74% and 7% were shared in person and via the internet or email, respectively. There were differences in healthcare professional recommendations, use of SMBP, and SMBP information sharing across demographic characteristics and state of residency.

CONCLUSIONS

SMBP recommendation was common practice among healthcare professionals, as reported by US adults with hypertension. Data from this study can be used to guide interventions to promote hypertension self-management and control.

Does This Adult Patient Have Hypertension?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Office blood pressure (BP) measurements are not the most accurate method to diagnose hypertension. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) are out-of-office alternatives, and ABPM is considered the reference standard for BP assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the accuracy of oscillometric office and home BP measurement methods for correctly classifying adults as having hypertension, defined using ABPM.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and DARE databases and the American Heart Association website (from inception to April 2021) were searched, along with reference lists from retrieved articles.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently abstracted raw data and assessed methodological quality. A third author resolved disputes as needed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Random effects summary sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for BP measurement methods for the diagnosis of hypertension. ABPM (24-hour mean BP ≥130/80 mm Hg or mean BP while awake ≥135/85 mm Hg) was considered the reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 12 cross-sectional studies (n = 6877) that compared conventional oscillometric office BP measurements to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM and 6 studies (n = 2049) that compared mean BP on HBPM to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM were included (range, 117-2209 participants per analysis); 2 of these studies (n = 3040) used consecutive samples. The overall prevalence of hypertension identified by 24-hour ABPM was 49% (95% CI, 39%-60%) in the pooled studies that evaluated office measures and 54% (95% CI, 39%-69%) in studies that evaluated HBPM. All included studies assessed sensitivity and specificity at the office BP threshold of 140/90 mm Hg and the home BP threshold of 135/85 mm Hg. Conventional office oscillometric measurement (1-5 measurements in a single visit with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 51% (95% CI, 36%-67%), specificity of 88% (95% CI, 80%-96%), positive LR of 4.2 (95% CI, 2.5-6.0), and negative LR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.69). Mean BP with HBPM (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-86%), specificity of 76% (95% CI, 65%-86%), positive LR of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.0), and negative LR of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.20-0.47). Two studies (1 with a consecutive sample) that compared unattended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had sensitivity ranging from 48% to 51% and specificity ranging from 80% to 91%. One study that compared attended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had a sensitivity of 87.6% (95% CI, 83%-92%) and specificity of 24.1% (95% CI, 16%-32%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Office measurements of BP may not be accurate enough to rule in or rule out hypertension; HBPM may be helpful to confirm a diagnosis. When there is uncertainty around threshold values or when office and HBPM are not in agreement, 24-hour ABPM should be considered to establish the diagnosis.

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.

Using out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: a secondary analysis of data from two blood pressure monitoring studies

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) measurement is increasingly carried out through home or ambulatory monitoring, yet existing cardiovascular risk scores were developed for use with measurements obtained in clinics.

AIM

To describe differences in cardiovascular risk estimates obtained using ambulatory or home BP measurements instead of clinic readings.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Secondary analysis of data from adults aged 25-84 years in the UK and the Netherlands without prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in two BP monitoring studies: the Blood Pressure in different Ethnic groups (BP-Eth) study and the Home versus Office blood pressure MEasurements: Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study (HOMERUS).

METHOD

The primary comparison was Framingham risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Statistical significance was determined using non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

In 442 BP-Eth patients (mean age = 58 years, 50% female [n = 222]) the median absolute difference in 10-year Framingham cardiovascular risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements was 1.84% (interquartile range [IQR] 0.65-3.63, P = 0.67). In 165 HOMERUS patients (mean age = 56 years, 46% female) the median absolute difference in 10-year risk for daytime ambulatory BP was 2.76% (IQR 1.19-6.39, P<0.001) and only 8 out of 165 (4.8%) of patients were reclassified.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of cardiovascular risk are similar when calculated using BP measurements obtained as in the risk score derivation study or through ambulatory monitoring. Further research is required to determine if differences in estimated risk would meaningfully influence risk score accuracy.

Blood pressure checks and diagnosing hypertension (BP-CHECK): Design and methods of a randomized controlled diagnostic study comparing clinic, home, kiosk, and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring

BACKGROUND

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BPs) before making a new diagnosis of hypertension, using 24-h ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM), however this is not common in routine clinical practice. Blood Pressure Checks and Diagnosing Hypertension (BP-CHECK) is a randomized controlled diagnostic study assessing the comparability and acceptability of clinic, home, and kiosk-based BP monitoring to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Stakeholders including patients, providers, policy makers, and researchers informed the study design and protocols.

METHODS

Adults aged 18-85 without diagnosed hypertension and on no hypertension medication with elevated BPs in clinic and at the baseline research visit are randomized to one of 3 regimens for diagnosing hypertension: (1) clinic BPs, (2) home BPs, or (3) kiosk BPs; all participants subsequently complete ABPM. The primary outcomes are the comparability (with daytime ABPM mean systolic and diastolic BP as the reference standard) and acceptability (e.g., adherence to, patient-reported outcomes) of each method compared to ABPM. Longer-term outcomes are assessed at 6-months including: patient-reported outcomes, primary care providers' diagnosis of hypertension; and BP control. We report challenges experienced and our response to these.

RESULTS

Enrollment began in May of 2017 with a target of randomizing 510 participants. BP thresholds for diagnosing hypertension in the US changed after the trial started. We discuss the stakeholder process used to assess and respond to these changes.

CONCLUSION AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT

BP-CHECK will inform which hypertension diagnostic methods are most accurate, acceptable, and feasible to implement in primary care.

Acceptability and psychological impact of out-of-office monitoring to diagnose hypertension: an evaluation of survey data from primary care patients

BACKGROUND

Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) is recommended for diagnosing hypertension in primary care due to its increased accuracy compared to office BP. Moreover, being diagnosed as hypertensive has previously been linked to lower wellbeing. There is limited evidence regarding the acceptability of out-of-office BP and its impact on wellbeing.

AIM

To assess the acceptability and psychological impact of out-of-office monitoring in people with suspected hypertension.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A pre- and post-evaluation of participants with elevated (≥130 mmHg) systolic BP, assessing the psychological impact of 28 days of self-monitoring followed by ambulatory BP monitoring for 24 hours.

METHOD

Participants completed standardised psychological measures pre- and post-monitoring, and a validated acceptability scale post-monitoring. Descriptive data were compared using χ² tests and binary logistic regression. Pre- and post-monitoring comparisons were made using the paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test.

RESULTS

Out-of-office BP monitoring had no impact on depression and anxiety status in 93% and 85% of participants, respectively. Self-monitoring was more acceptable than ambulatory monitoring (n = 183, median 2.4, interquartile range [IQR] 1.9-3.1 versus median 3.2, IQR 2.7-3.7, P<0.01). When asked directly, 48/183 participants (26%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 20 to 33%) reported that self-monitoring made them anxious, and 55/183 (30%, 95% CI = 24 to 37%) reported that ambulatory monitoring made them anxious.

CONCLUSION

Out-of-office monitoring for hypertension diagnosis does not appear to be harmful. However, health professionals should be aware that in some patients it induces feelings of anxiety, and self-monitoring may be preferable to ambulatory monitoring.

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.

Patient experience of home and waiting room blood pressure measurement: a qualitative study of patients with recently diagnosed hypertension

BACKGROUND

Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is advocated to confirm hypertension diagnosis. However, little is known about how primary care patients view and use such measurement.

AIM

To investigate patient experience of out-of-office BP monitoring, particularly home and practice waiting room BP measurement, before, during, and after diagnosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional, qualitative study with patients from two UK GP surgeries participating in a feasibility study of waiting room BP measurement.

METHOD

Interviewees were identified from recent additions to the practice hypertension register. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically.

RESULTS

Of 29 interviewees, 9 (31%) and 22 (76%) had used the waiting room monitor and/or monitored at home respectively. Out-of-office monitoring was used by patients as evidence of control or the lack of need for medication, with the printed results slips from the waiting room monitor perceived to improve 'trustworthiness'. The waiting room monitor enabled those experiencing uncertainty about their equipment or technique to double-check readings. Monitoring at home allowed a more intensive and/or flexible schedule to investigate BP fluctuations and the impact of medication and lifestyle changes. A minority used self-monitoring to inform drug holidays. Reduced intensity of monitoring was reported with both modalities following diagnosis as initial anxiety or patient and GP interest decreased.

CONCLUSION

Home and practice waiting room measurements have overlapping but differing roles for patients. Waiting room BP monitors may be a useful out-of-office measurement modality for patients unwilling and/or unable to measure and record their BP at home.

Prospective external validation of the Predicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) strategy for triaging ambulatory monitoring in the diagnosis and management of hypertension: observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively validate the Predicting Out-of-OFfice Blood Pressure (PROOF-BP) algorithm to triage patients with suspected high blood pressure for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

10 primary care practices and one hospital in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

887 consecutive patients aged 18 years or more referred for ABPM in routine clinical practice. All underwent ABPM and had the PROOF-BP applied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was the proportion of participants whose hypertensive status was correctly classified using the triaging strategy compared with the reference standard of daytime ABPM. Secondary outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for detecting hypertension.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 52.8 (16.2) years. The triaging strategy correctly classified hypertensive status in 801 of the 887 participants (90%, 95% confidence interval 88% to 92%) and had a sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval 96% to 98%) and specificity of 76% (95% confidence interval 71% to 81%) for hypertension. The AUROC was 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.89). Use of triaging, rather than uniform referral for ABPM in routine practice, would have resulted in 435 patients (49%, 46% to 52%) being referred for ABPM and the remainder managed on the basis of their clinic measurements. Of these, 69 (8%, 6% to 10%) would have received treatment deemed unnecessary had they received ABPM.

CONCLUSIONS

In a population of patients referred for ABPM, this new triaging approach accurately classified hypertensive status for most, with half the utilisation of ABPM compared with usual care. This triaging strategy can therefore be recommended for diagnosis or management of hypertension in patients where ABPM is being considered, particularly in settings with limited resources.

[Efficiency between the different measurement patterns of home blood pressure monitoring in the follow-up of hypertensive patients in primary care]

Objetivo

Identificar el patrón de medición de la automonitorización de la presión arterial (AMPA) más eficiente para el seguimiento del hipertenso en atención primaria.

Diseño

Estudio validación de prueba diagnóstica.

Emplazamiento

Equipo de atención primaria en Murcia.

Población

Ciento cincuenta y tres hipertensos menores de 80 años que cumplieran con los criterios de inclusión; y con AMPA y monitorización ambulatoria de su presión arterial válidos.

Mediciones principales

Realización de monitorización ambulatoria de presión arterial durante 24 h (MAPA). El protocolo de AMPA consistió en registrar 2 mediciones en la mañana y 2 en la noche durante 7 días. Con los registros obtenidos se establecieron los diferentes patrones de AMPA (7, 6, 5, 4, 3 días). Para el análisis utilizamos las curvas COR, el coeficiente de correlación intraclase y el diagrama de Bland-Altman.

Resultados

Las mejores áreas bajo la curva para la presión sistólica de los diferentes patrones de la AMPA correspondieron al patrón de 4 días: 0,837 (0,77-0,90); y al de 3 días: 0,834 (0,77-0,90). En cuanto a la diastólica, el patrón de 7 días presentó un área bajo la curva de 0,889 (0,84-0,94); y en segundo lugar, coincidiendo con la misma cifra, los patrones de 3 y 4 días: 0,834 (0,83-0,94). No hubo diferencias significativas entre los coeficientes de correlación intraclase para las presiones arteriales sistólicas y diastólicas. El patrón de 3 días mostró en conjunto una menor dispersión en el diagrama de Bland-Altman.

Conclusión

Proponemos el patrón de AMPA de 3 días para el seguimiento del paciente hipertenso, ya que no presenta una eficiencia inferior a los demás patrones.

Patient use of blood pressure self-screening facilities in general practice waiting rooms: a qualitative study in the UK

Background

Blood pressure (BP) self-screening, whereby members of the public have access to BP monitoring equipment outside of healthcare consultations, may increase the detection and treatment of hypertension. Currently in the UK such opportunities are largely confined to GP waiting rooms.

Aim

To investigate the reasons why people do or do not use BP self-screening facilities.

Design and setting

A cross-sectional, qualitative study in Oxfordshire, UK.

Method

Semi-structured interviews with members of the general public recruited using posters in GP surgeries and community locations were recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically.

Results

Of the 30 interviewees, 20% were hypertensive and almost half had self-screened. Those with no history of elevated readings had limited concern over their BP: self-screening filled the time waiting for their appointment or was done to help their doctor. Patients with hypertension self-screened to avoid the feelings they associated with ‘white coat syndrome’ and to introduce more control into the measurement process. Barriers to self-screening included a lack of awareness, uncertainty about technique, and worries over measuring BP in a public place. An unanticipated finding was that several interviewees preferred monitoring their BP in the waiting room than at home.

Conclusion

BP self-screening appeared acceptable to service users. Further promotion and education could increase awareness among non-users of the need for BP screening, the existence of self-screening facilities, and its ease of use. Waiting room monitors could provide an alternative for patients with hypertension who are unwilling or unable to monitor at home.

Trends in the diagnosis and management of hypertension: repeated primary care survey in South West England

BACKGROUND

Previous surveys identified a shift to nurse-led care in hypertension in 2010. In 2011 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended ambulatory (ABPM) or home (HBPM) blood pressure (BP) monitoring for diagnosis of hypertension.

AIM

To survey the organisation of hypertension care in 2016 to identify changes, and to assess uptake of NICE diagnostic guidelines.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Questionnaires were distributed to all 305 general practices in South West England.

METHOD

Responses were compared with previous rounds (2007 and 2010). Data from the 2015 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) were used to compare responders with non-responders, and to explore associations of care organisation with QOF achievement.

RESULTS

One-hundred-and-seventeen practices (38%) responded. Responders had larger list sizes and greater achievement of the QOF target BP ≤150/90 mmHg. Healthcare assistants (HCAs) now monitor BP in 70% of practices, compared with 37% in 2010 and 19% in 2007 (P<0.001). Nurse prescribers alter BP medication in 26% of practices (11% in 2010, none in 2007; P<0.001). Of the practices, 89% have access to ABPM, but only 71% report confidence in interpreting results. Also, 87% offer HBPM, with 93% of these confident in interpreting results.

CONCLUSION

In primary care BP monitoring has devolved from GPs and nurses to HCAs. One in 10 practices are not implementing NICE guidelines on ABPM and HBPM for diagnosis of hypertension. Most practices express confidence interpreting HBPM results but less so with ABPM. The need for education and quality assurance for allied health professionals is highlighted, and for training in ABPM interpretation for GPs.

Evaluation of a short home blood pressure measurement in an outpatient population of hypertensives

Current guidelines suggest the use of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) as a method complementary to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for the identification of arterial hypertension. A cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of a short HBPM schedule compared with ABPM, and to evaluate to what extent HBPM can replace ABPM. A total of 310 patients who performed ABPM in our hypertension clinic were enrolled between November 2011 and June 2015. They performed a 4-day HBPM schedule, with two readings in the morning and two readings at night. Results showed a moderate correlation between HBPM and ABPM (r = 0.59 for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and r = 0.72 for diastolic blood pressure (DBP)) and moderate diagnostic agreement (area under curve: 0.791 for SBP and 0.857 for DBP). No significant difference was found between first-day average and those of days 2-4. Diagnostic agreement between the two techniques was moderate, supporting the notion that HBPM cannot replace ABPM in the general population. However, we identified two HBPM thresholds, 123/75 and 144/87 mm Hg, through which subjects who may not require further ABPM can be identified.

Patients' and clinicians' views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure: a qualitative focus group and interview study

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring of blood pressure is common but guidance on how it should be carried out varies and it is currently unclear how such guidance is viewed.

AIM

To explore patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views and experiences of the use of different self-monitoring regimens to determine what is acceptable and feasible, and to inform future recommendations.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Thirteen focus groups and four HCP interviews were held, with a total of 66 participants (41 patients and 25 HCPs) from primary and secondary care with and without experience of self-monitoring.

METHOD

Standard and shortened self-monitoring protocols were both considered. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Patients generally supported structured schedules but with sufficient flexibility to allow adaptation to individual routine. They preferred a shorter (3-day) schedule to longer (7-day) regimens. Although HCPs could describe benefits for patients of using a schedule, they were reluctant to recommend a specific schedule. Concerns surrounded the use of different schedules for diagnosis and subsequent monitoring. Appropriate education was seen as vital by all participants to enable a self-monitoring schedule to be followed at home.

CONCLUSION

There is not a 'one size fits all approach' to developing the optimum protocol from the perspective of users and those implementing it. An approach whereby patients are asked to complete the minimum number of readings required for accurate blood pressure estimation in a flexible manner seems most likely to succeed. Informative advice and guidance should incorporate such flexibility for patients and professionals alike.

Predicting Out-of-Office Blood Pressure in the Clinic (PROOF-BP): Derivation and Validation of a Tool to Improve the Accuracy of Blood Pressure Measurement in Clinical Practice

Patients often have lower (white coat effect) or higher (masked effect) ambulatory/home blood pressure readings compared with clinic measurements, resulting in misdiagnosis of hypertension. The present study assessed whether blood pressure and patient characteristics from a single clinic visit can accurately predict the difference between ambulatory/home and clinic blood pressure readings (the home-clinic difference). A linear regression model predicting the home-clinic blood pressure difference was derived in 2 data sets measuring automated clinic and ambulatory/home blood pressure (n=991) using candidate predictors identified from a literature review. The model was validated in 4 further data sets (n=1172) using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. A masked effect was associated with male sex, a positive clinic blood pressure change (difference between consecutive measurements during a single visit), and a diagnosis of hypertension. Increasing age, clinic blood pressure level, and pulse pressure were associated with a white coat effect. The model showed good calibration across data sets (Pearson correlation, 0.48-0.80) and performed well-predicting ambulatory hypertension (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.79 [systolic]; 0.87; 0.85-0.89 [diastolic]). Used as a triaging tool for ambulatory monitoring, the model improved classification of a patient's blood pressure status compared with other guideline recommended approaches (93% [92% to 95%] classified correctly; United States, 73% [70% to 75%]; Canada, 74% [71% to 77%]; United Kingdom, 78% [76% to 81%]). This study demonstrates that patient characteristics from a single clinic visit can accurately predict a patient's ambulatory blood pressure. Usage of this prediction tool for triaging of ambulatory monitoring could result in more accurate diagnosis of hypertension and hence more appropriate treatment.

What is the evidence base for diagnosing hypertension and for subsequent blood pressure treatment targets in the prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Diagnosing and treating hypertension plays an important role in minimising the risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke. Early and accurate diagnosis of hypertension, as well as regular monitoring, is essential to meet treatment targets. In this article, current recommendations for the screening and diagnosis of hypertension are reviewed. The evidence for treatment targets specified in contemporary guidelines is evaluated and recommendations from the USA, Canada, Europe and the UK are compared. Finally, consideration is given as to how diagnosis and management of hypertension might develop in the future.