Screening for hypertension: an elevated office blood pressure measurement is valuable, adding an automated one is even better

Comparative accuracies of automated and manual office blood pressure measurements in a Chinese population

We aimed to assess the difference in the accuracy of readings from automated office blood pressure machines with each other or with manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese individuals. We collected awake 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, two automated office blood pressure device (BpTRU and WatchBP) readings, and manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese patients (n = 135) with hypertension in a randomized sequence. Differences were compared using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots. The sensitivity and specificity of the techniques for detecting elevated blood pressure were calculated using awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard. The WatchBP device's and awake ambulatory blood pressure readings were similar. The BpTRU device provided significantly lower mean systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.001) blood pressure readings, while manual office BP provided significantly higher mean systolic (P = 0.008) and diastolic (P < 0.001) blood pressure readings than the awake automated office blood pressure readings. Automated and manual office blood pressure measurements showed similar sensitivity, specificity, and 95% limits of agreement as based on Bland-Altman plots. The mean systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.02) blood pressure readings of WatchBP and BpTRU differed, and their diagnostic performances were not superior than those of manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese patients. Therefore, automated office blood pressure measurements cannot be routinely recommended for Chinese individuals in clinical practice. More studies are needed to confirm these results.

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. 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.

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.