A Short History of Automated Office Blood Pressure - 15 Years to SPRINT

Pilot Study of Intelligent Office Blood Pressure Measurement Model in Shanghai, China, 2022

Introduction

An intelligent office blood pressure measurement (IOBPM) model for community-based hypertension management was piloted in Shanghai, China, to overcome the conventional blood pressure management (CBPM) model's deficiencies.

Methods

We selected adults aged 35-89 years who were being treated and managed for hypertension in two community health centers for the IOBPM and CBPM models. The IOBPM model consisted of two or three consecutive blood pressure (BP) measurements using a pre-programmed and validated automatic device. The BP data for the CBPM model were obtained from the routine follow-up records of hypertensive patients and derived from the Shanghai Non-communicable Diseases Management Information System. Subjects in the IOBPM model were selected by a simple random sampling method, and propensity score matching was used to select a comparable control population from the CBPM model based on important covariables. The BP levels, end-digit preferences, frequency distribution, and BP control were compared between the two models.

Results

We selected 2,909 patients for the IOBPM model and 5,744 for the CBPM model. The systolic BP in the CBPM model was 12.3 mmHg lower than in the IOBPM model. In the CBPM model, there were statistically significant end-digit preferences (P < 0.001), with zero being the most reported end-digit (23.3% for systolic BP and 27.7% for diastolic BP). There was no significant end-digit preference in the IOBPM model. Certain BP values below 140/90 mmHg in the CBPM model were more frequent, while the IOBPM model showed a normal distribution. The BP control in the CBPM model was significantly higher than the IOBPM model (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The IOBPM model appears to overcome the deficiencies of the CBPM model, leading to more accurate and reliable BP measurements.

Automated office blood pressure measurement with the assistance of an instructional video in patients with hypertension

OBJECTIVES

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement often requires assistance. Accompanied by an instructional video, AOBP measurement could be performed independently by patients.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Seventy-five patients with hypertension were enrolled. AOBP was measured three times at 1-min intervals after 5 min of rest by an automated BP measurement device with the assistance of an animated instructional video. The video was designed originally to instruct patients on the way to measure BP appropriately. Perceived stress was evaluated using a questionnaire after the AOBP measurement. Office BP was measured three times using the same device. Home BP measurement was performed on 5 consecutive days.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 74.5 ± 10.6 years, and 96% were taking antihypertensive drugs. Mean AOBP, office BP and home BP measurements were 135.2 ± 17.2/81.3 ± 11.1, 139.3 ± 16.3/78.6 ± 10.9 and 129.2 ± 16.7/72.7 ± 8.9 mmHg, respectively. Regarding SBP, the mean AOBP was significantly lower than office BP ( P  = 0.005) and higher than home BP ( P  = 0.004). The differences in SBP and DBP between AOBP and home BP measurements were significantly related to patients' perceived stress when performing AOBP measurements ( r  = 0.289; P  = 0.013 and r  = 0.328; P  = 0.004). In a multivariate analysis, patients' perceived stress was a significant predictor of the difference between AOBP and home BP ( P  = 0.013), even after adjusting for age, sex, BMI and mean of AOBP and home BP.

CONCLUSION

AOBP values measured with the assistance of an instructional video were between conventional office and home BP measurements. Perceived stress during AOBP measurement was related to the difference in AOBP from home BP.

[Effet blouse blanche résiduel : un outil pertinent en soins premiers?]

BACKGROUND

White coat effect (WCE) and white coat hypertension (WCH) are hardly both compared in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the usefulness of repeated measures of systolic blood pressure (SBP) to dissociate various forms of white-coat interactions.

METHODS

An open cross-sectional study on consecutive patients treated or not for high blood pressure was made in family physicians' offices. SBP was measured 5 times by an electronic device. Measurements were performed before (SBP1) and after (SBP5) the office visit by a lay assistant and at the beginning (SBP2), middle (SBP3) and end (SBP4) of visit, by the family physician. Home BP (HBPM) was measured from 3 consecutive days by the patient. WCE and office WCE tail (OWCET) were defined, respectively, as a 10 mmHg SBP increase or decrease between SBP2-SBP1 or SBP4-SBP2. WCH was considered when HBPM was normal (SBP < 135 mmHg) at home and high during the SBP2 office visit.

RESULTS

Two hundred five patients (134 women versus 71 men, ratio 1.9, aged 59.8±15.7 years) were recruited. In categorical terms, there were 51 patients (25%) who presented with WCE, OWCET was seen in 121 patients (62%) and 47 patients (23%) had WCH. Only 36 patients (18%) presented both OWCET and WCE and 32 (16%) had both OWCET and WCH. The receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) of OWCET in diagnosing WCE or WCH were respectively 0.67 (p<0.0001) and 0.53 (NS).

CONCLUSION

Thus, OWCET was predictive of WCE and not of WCH and it is worthwhile to be measured in the family physician office.

Unattended versus Attended Blood Pressure Measurement: Relationship with Retinal Microcirculation

Though the relationship between both “attended” and “unattended” BP and several forms of target organ damage have been evaluated, data on retinal arteriolar alterations are lacking. The aim of our study was to evaluate the relationship between “attended” or “unattended” BP values and retinal arteriolar changes in consecutive individuals undergoing a clinical evaluation and assessment of retinal fundus at an ESH Excellence Centre. An oscillometric device programmed to perform 3 BP measurements, at 1 min intervals and after 5 min of rest was used on all individuals to measure BP with the patient alone in the room (“unattended”) or in the presence of the physician (“attended”) in the same day in a random order. The retinal arteriole’s wall thickness (WT) was measured automatically by a localization algorithm as the difference between external (ED) and internal diameter (ID) by adaptive optics (RTX-1, Imagine Eyes, Orsay, Francia). Media-to-lumen ratio (WLR) of the retinal arterioles and cross-sectional area (WCSA) of the vascular wall were calculated. Results: One-hundred-forty-two patients were examined (mean age 57 ± 12 yrs, 48% female, mean BMI 26 ± 4). Among them, 60% had hypertension (84% treated) and 11% had type 2 diabetes mellitus. Unattended systolic BP (SBP) was lower as compared to attended SBP (129 ± 14.8. vs. 122.1 ± 13.6 mmHg, p < 0.0001). WLR was similarly correlated with unattended and attended SBP (r = 0.281, p < 0.0001 and r = 0.382, p < 0.0001) and with unattended and attended diastolic BP (r = 0.34, p < 0.001 and r = 0.29, p < 0.0001). The differences between correlations were not statistically significant (Steiger’s Z test). Conclusion: The measurement of “unattended” or “attended” BP provides different values, and unattended BP is lower as compared to attended BP. In this study a similar correlation was observed between attended and unattended BP values and structural changes of retinal arterioles.

Office blood pressure: overcoming the problems of diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension treatment

Some national guidelines since 2017 considered the most common method for diagnosing and controlling hypertension (HTN) (office blood pressure (OBP) measurement) as screening only. Automated OBP (AOBP) measurement claims to be a unique method by obtaining a standardized result, even in primary health care. AOBP improves the reliability of data by reducing the influence of various errors on result. However, although the level of AOBP is on average lower than similar OBP in clinical and research practice and is comparable to the mean 24-hour BP monitoring, at present, all international guidelines emphasize the mandatory use of ambulatory BP measurements for diagnostic purposes. Whether the results of AOBP and the reference level ≥130/80 mm Hg are equivalent with the same OBP level, the use of which is associated with an increase in the prevalence of hypertension and insufficient control of antihypertensive therapy, is a question for research. Compared with conventional OBP, the use of AOBP in conjunction with outpatient measurement leads to a reduction in the proportion and timing of initiation of treatment in patients with masked HTN, whose cardiovascular risk is similar to that of patients with stable HTN. However, the widespread implementation of AOBP is hindered by the high cost and lack of accumulated data. The review analyzes in detail the limitations and advantages of various types of BP measurement, as well as the potential of using AOBP in modern clinical and research practice.

 

2022 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology and the Taiwan Hypertension Society for the Management of Hypertension

Hypertension is the most important modifiable cause of cardiovascular (CV) disease and all-cause mortality worldwide. Despite the positive correlations between blood pressure (BP) levels and later CV events since BP levels as low as 100/60 mmHg have been reported in numerous epidemiological studies, the diagnostic criteria of hypertension and BP thresholds and targets of antihypertensive therapy have largely remained at the level of 140/90 mmHg in the past 30 years. The publication of both the SPRINT and STEP trials (comprising > 8,500 Caucasian/African and Chinese participants, respectively) provided evidence to shake this 140/90 mmHg dogma. Another dogma regarding hypertension management is the dependence on office (or clinic) BP measurements. Although standardized office BP measurements have been widely recommended and adopted in large-scale CV outcome trials, the practice of office BP measurements has never been ideal in real-world practice. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) is easy to perform, more likely to be free of environmental and/or emotional stress, feasible to document long-term BP variations, of good reproducibility and reliability, and more correlated with hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD) and CV events, compared to routine office BP measurements. In the 2022 Taiwan Hypertension Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology (TSOC) and the Taiwan Hypertension Society (THS), we break these two dogmas by recommending the definition of hypertension as ≥ 130/80 mmHg and a universal BP target of < 130/80 mmHg, based on standardized HBPM obtained according to the 722 protocol. The 722 protocol refers to duplicate BP readings taken per occasion ("2"), twice daily ("2"), over seven consecutive days ("7"). To facilitate implementation of the guidelines, a series of flowcharts encompassing assessment, adjustment, and HBPM-guided hypertension management are provided. Other key messages include that: 1) lifestyle modification, summarized as the mnemonic S-ABCDE, should be applied to people with elevated BP and hypertensive patients to reduce life-time BP burden; 2) all 5 major antihypertensive drugs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [A], angiotensin receptor blockers [A], β-blockers [B], calcium-channel blockers [C], and thiazide diuretics [D]) are recommended as first-line antihypertensive drugs; 3) initial combination therapy, preferably in a single-pill combination, is recommended for patients with BP ≥ 20/10 mmHg above targets; 4) a target hierarchy (HBPM-HMOD- ambulatory BP monitoring [ABPM]) should be considered to optimize hypertension management, which indicates reaching the HBPM target first and then keeping HMOD stable or regressed, otherwise ABPM can be arranged to guide treatment adjustment; and 5) renal denervation can be considered as an alternative BP-lowering strategy after careful clinical and imaging evaluation.

General practitioners maintain a focus on blood pressure management rather than absolute cardiovascular disease risk management

BACKGROUND

Absolute cardiovascular disease (aCVD) risk assessment is recommended in CVD prevention guidelines. Yet, General Practitioners (GPs) often focus on single risk factors, including blood pressure (BP). Pathology services may be suitable to undertake high-quality automated unobserved BP (AOBP) measurement and aCVD risk assessment. This study explored GP attitudes towards AOBP measurement via pathology services and the role of BP in aCVD risk management.

METHODS

A brief survey was completed, after which a focus group (n = 8 GPs) and interviews (n = 10 GPs) explored attitudes to AOBP and aCVD risk via pathology services with an example pathology report discussed. Verbatim transcripts were thematically coded.

RESULTS

GPs predominantly used doctor-measured BP despite low levels of confidence. High BP measured by AOBP reported with aCVD risk via pathology services, would prompt a follow-up response. However, GPs focused on BP management. GPs were concerned about AOBP equivalency to routine BP measurements. After protocol explanation, GPs reported AOBP could value-add to care delivery.

CONCLUSION

GPs lacked familiarity of AOBP and maintained a focus on BP management in the context of absolute CVD risk. Targeted education on AOBP and BP management as part of absolute CVD risk is needed to support guideline-directed care in practice.

SPRINT Revisited: Updated Results and Implications

The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) results have influenced clinical practice but have also generated discussion regarding the validity, generalizability, and importance of the findings. Following the SPRINT primary results manuscript in 2015, additional results and analyses of the data have addressed these concerns. The primary objective of this article is to respond to key questions that have been raised.

A look to the future: Pandemic-induced digital technologies in vascular surgery

Like many areas of medicine, vascular surgery has been transformed by the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic. Public health precautions to minimize disease transmission have led to reduced attendance at hospitals and clinics in elective and emergency settings; fewer face-to-face and hands-on clinical interactions; and increased reliance on telemedicine, virtual attendance, investigations, and digital therapeutics. However, a “silver lining” to the COVID-19 pandemic may be the mainstream acceptance and acceleration of telemedicine, remote monitoring, digital health technology, and three-dimensional technologies, such as three-dimensional printing and virtual reality, by connecting health care providers to patients in a safe, reliable, and timely manner, and supplanting face-to-face surgical simulation and training. This review explores the impact of these changes in the delivery of vascular surgical care.

Guide de Pratique Clinique. Prise en charge de l’hypertension artérielle chez l’adulte en Tunisie

Ce document a été réalisé dans le cadre d'une collaboration entre l'Instance Nationale de l’Évaluation et de l'Accréditation en Santé (INEAS), la Société Tunisienne de Cardiologie et de Chirurgie Cardiovasculaire (STCCCV) et la Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie (CNAM).

Digit Preference in Office Blood Pressure Measurements, United States 2015-2019

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) measurement error may lead to under- or overtreatment of hypertension. One common source of error is terminal digit preference, most often a terminal digit of "0." The objective was to evaluate national trends in terminal digit preference in office BP measurements among adults with treated hypertension.

METHODS

Data were from IQVIA's National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative, serial cross-sectional survey of office-based physicians. The analysis included office visits from 2015 to 2019 among adults aged ≥18 years receiving antihypertensive treatment. Annual trends were examined in the percent of systolic and diastolic BP measurements ending in zero by patient sex, age, and race/ethnicity, physician specialty, and first or subsequent hypertension treatment visit.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2019, there were ~60 million hypertension treatment visits annually (unweighted N: 5,585-9,085). There was a decrease in the percent of visits with systolic (41.7%-37.7%) or diastolic (42.7%-37.8%) BP recordings ending in zero. Trends were similar by patient characteristics. However, a greater proportion of measurements ended in zero among patients aged ≥80 (vs. 15-59 or 60-79) years, first (vs. subsequent) treatment visits, visits to cardiologists (vs. primary care physicians), and visits with systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 (vs. <140/90) mm Hg.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite modest improvement, terminal digit preference remains a common problem in office BP measurement in the United States. Without bias, 10%-20% of measurements are expected to end in zero. Reducing digit preference is a priority for improving BP measurement accuracy and hypertension management.

Relationship between arterial stiffness and unattended or attended blood pressure values

BACKGROUND AND METHOD

Measurement of 'unattended' blood pressure (BP) may reduce or eliminate the 'white-coat effect'. Despite the possible advantages of this approach for BP measurement, only few studies analysed the relationship between unattended BP and cardiovascular events or with hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD). The aim of our study was to evaluate the relationship between 'attended' or 'unattended' BP values and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) in 285 individuals undergoing a visit and assessment of arterial stiffness at an ESH Excellence Centre. Unattended BP (measured with the patient alone in the room, with an oscillometric device programmed to perform three BP measurements, at 1-min intervals, after 5 min) and attended BP were measured with the same device, on the same day of the measurement of PWV, in a random order.

RESULTS

Mean age was 63 ± 13 years, mean BMI 26 ± 4, 47% were women, 76% had hypertension (55% treated). Systolic unattended BP was lower than attended SBP (124.4 ± 14.3 vs. 130.9 ± 16.1 mmHg). PWV was similarly correlated with attended and unattended SBP values (r = 0.428 and r = 0.404, P < 0.0001, respectively). No difference for the prediction of increased arterial stiffness was observed at receiver operator curves (ROCs) analysis [attended SBP area under the curve (AUC) 0.665, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.607-0.720 vs. unattended SBP: AUC 0.651, 95% CI 0.593-0.706, P for the comparison = ns].

CONCLUSION

Attended and unattended BP values are similarly correlated with PWV, the gold standard measure of arterial stiffness. These findings may provide further information on the clinical value of unattended BP.

Guideline-Driven Management of Hypertension: An Evidence-Based Update

Several important findings bearing on the prevention, detection, and management of hypertension have been reported since publication of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Blood Pressure Guideline. This review summarizes and places in context the results of relevant observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses published between January 2018 and March 2021. Topics covered include blood pressure measurement, patient evaluation for secondary hypertension, cardiovascular disease risk assessment and blood pressure threshold for drug therapy, lifestyle and pharmacological management, treatment target blood pressure goal, management of hypertension in older adults, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, resistant hypertension, and optimization of care using patient, provider, and health system approaches. Presenting new information in each of these areas has the potential to increase hypertension awareness, treatment, and control which remain essential for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and mortality in the future.

The cuffless SOMNOtouch NIBP device shows poor agreement with a validated oscillometric device during 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Repeated cuff‐based blood pressure (BP) measurements may cause discomfort resulting in stress and erroneous recording values. SOMNOtouch NIBP is an alternative cuff‐less BP measurement device that calculates changes in BP based on changes in pulse transit time (PTT) and a software algorithm. The device is calibrated with a single upper arm cuff‐based BP measurement. We tested the device against a validated 24‐h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) device using both the previous (SomBP1) and the current software algorithm (SomBP2). In this study, 51 patients (mean age ± SD 61.5 ± 13.0 years) with essential hypertension underwent simultaneous 24‐h ABPM with the SOMNOtouch NIBP on the left arm and a standard cuff‐based oscillometric device on the right arm (OscBP). We found that mean daytime systolic BP (SBP) with OscBP was 140.8 ± 19.7 compared to 148.0 ± 25.2 (P = .008) and 146.9 ± 26.0 mmHg (P = .034) for SomBP1 and SomBP2, respectively. Nighttime SBP with OscBP was 129.5 ± 21.1 compared with 146.1 ± 25.8 (P < .0001) and 141.1 ± 27.4 mmHg (P = .001) for SomBP1 and SomBP2, respectively. Ninety‐five% limits of agreement between OscBP and SomBP1 were ± 36.6 mmHg for daytime and ± 42.6 mmHg for nighttime SBP, respectively. Agreements were not improved with SomBP2. For SBP, a nocturnal dipping pattern was found in 33% of the study patients when measured with OscBP but only in 2% and 20% with SomBP1 and ‐2, respectively. This study demonstrates that BP values obtained with the cuff‐less PTT‐based SOMNOtouch device should be interpreted with caution as these may differ substantially from what would be obtained from a validated cuff‐based BP device.

Human Errors in Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement: Still Room for Improvement

In this review of the literature and commentary, we examine the literature on automated blood pressure (BP) measurements in the office and clinic. Our purpose is to revisit issues as to the pros and cons of automated BP measurement published in Hypertension in June 2020 and to identify areas needing additional research. Despite initial reservations about automated BP, it is here to stay. A number of experts suggest that human error will be reduced when we move from the more complex skills required by aneroid sphygmomanometer measurement to the fewer skills and steps required by automated BP measurement. Our review indicates there is still need for reduction in errors in automated BP assessment, for example, retraining programs and monitoring of assessment procedures. We need more research on the following questions: (1) which classes of health care providers are least likely to measure BP accurately, usually by ignoring necessary steps; (2) how accurate is BP assessment by affiliated health care providers for example the dental office, the optometrist; and (3) why do some dedicated and well-informed health care professionals fail to follow simple directions for automated BP measurement? We offer additional solutions for improving automated BP assessment in the office and clinic.

Use of Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement in the Evaluation of Elevated Blood Pressures in Children and Adolescents

OBJECTIVES

To determine the level of agreement between automated office blood pressures (AOBP), auscultated or manual office BP (manual office blood pressure), and 24-hour ABPM, and to explore the ability of AOBP and manual office blood pressure to correctly identify daytime ambulatory hypertension in children.

STUDY DESIGN

We retrospectively compared BPs obtained by AOBP and manual office blood pressure to predict daytime hypertension on ABPM. Six BPs were taken by AOBP followed by manual office blood pressure. Office hypertension was defined by BPs ≥95th percentile for sex and height percentiles for those <13 years of age and a BP of ≥130/80 mm Hg for ages ≥13 years. Daytime ambulatory hypertension was diagnosed if mean wake BPs were ≥95th percentile and BP loads were ≥25%. Application of adult ABPM thresholds for daytime hypertension (130/80 mm Hg) was assessed in ages ≥13 years. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated considering ABPM as the reference.

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 187 patient encounters. Overall, the best agreement was found if both AOBP and manual office blood pressure showed hypertension, but owing to low sensitivity up to 49% of children with hypertension would be misclassified. The use of adult thresholds for ABPM did not improve agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither AOBP nor manual office blood pressure confirm or exclude daytime ambulatory hypertension with confidence. These results suggest an ongoing role for ABPM in evaluation of hypertension in children.

Effects of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Control on All-Cause Hospitalizations

Intensive blood pressure control decreases the rate of cardiovascular events by >25% compared with standard blood pressure control. We sought to determine whether the decrease in cardiovascular events seen with intensive blood pressure control is associated with an increased rate of other causes of hospitalization. This is a post hoc analysis of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) in 9361 adult participants with hypertension and elevated cardiovascular risk. Participants were randomly assigned to an intensive or standard systolic blood pressure goal (<120 or <140 mm Hg, respectively). The primary outcome was hospitalization rates per 100 person-years for hospitalizations not associated with SPRINT primary events. After excluding hospitalizations linked to SPRINT primary events, there were 4678 participants with a rate of 19.70 hospitalizations per 100 person-years, compared with 4683 participants with a rate of 19.65 (P=0.37). Equivalence testing shows that these hospitalization rates were statistically equivalent at the P=0.05 level. Of those with hospitalizations, >1 hospitalization was seen in 38.8% of intensive arm participants and 41.9% of standard arm participants (P=0.08). The mean cumulative count of nonprimary event hospitalizations was comparable between the two arms. The most common causes of hospitalization were cardiovascular (23.6%) followed by injuries, including bone and joint therapeutic procedures (15.7%), infections (12.0%), and nervous systems disorders (10.7%). No categories of hospitalization were statistically more common in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm. Thus, the decrease in cardiovascular events seen with intensive blood pressure control is not associated with an increased rate of other causes of hospitalization. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Comparing blood pressure measurements between a photoplethysmography-based and a standard cuff-based manometry device

Repeated blood pressure (BP) measurements allow better control of hypertension. Current measurements rely on cuff-based devices. The aim of the present study was to compare BP measurements using a novel cuff-less photoplethysmography-based device to a standard sphygmomanometer device. Males and females were recruited from within the general population who arrived at a public BP screening station. One to two measurements were taken from each using a sphygmomanometer-based and the photoplethysmography-based devices. Devices were considered equal if the mean difference between paired measurements was below 5 mmHg and the Standard Deviation (SD) was no greater than 8 mmHg. Agreement and reliability analyses were also performed. 1057 subjects were included in the study analysis. There were no adverse events during the study. The mean (± SD) difference between paired measurements for all subjects was -0.1 ± 3.6 mmHg for the systolic and 0.0 ± 3.5 mmHg for the diastolic readings. We found 96.31% agreement in identifying hypertension and an Interclass Correlation Coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively. The photoplethysmography-based device was found similar to the gold-standard sphygmomanometer-based device with high agreement and reliability levels. The device might enable a reliable, more convenient method for repeated BP monitoring.

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.

Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement: Time efficiency and barriers to implementation/utilization

Unattended automated office blood pressure (BP) measurement (u-AOBP) improves office BP measurement accuracy and reduces white-coat BP elevation, but there are reservations about its time efficiency in primary care. We used time-stamp methodology to measure u-AOBP procedure times performed without a rest period in 130 patients during routine clinic visits to three primary care clinics with 2.5-4.9 years u-AOBP experience. We documented the clinical activities of 30 medical assistants during the u-AOBP procedures. We also assessed MA and clinician satisfaction and knowledge about u-AOBP performance and interpretation. Median u-AOBP procedure time was <5 minutes, and MAs engaged in productive clinical activities during 83% of the procedures. Ninety-three percent of MAs and 100% of clinicians in the clinics agreed that u-AOBP is an efficient method to improve hypertension management. Barriers to effective u-AOBP implementation and ongoing utilization included initial difficulty incorporating u-AOBP into clinic workflow and medical staff knowledge deficiencies concerning correct u-AOBP performance and interpretation despite prior training and experience with the procedure. Intensive u-AOBP education and training programs are needed to facilitate effective u-AOBP implementation into primary care. The time required to perform u-AOBP can be utilized productively by staff.

Multiple Modern Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement and the 2018 European Society of Hypertesion Guidelines

The new international guidelines on hypertension management have been issued in the past few years. The AHA (2017) and ESH (2018) Guidelines are similar in many key aspects. However, they differ substantially in the area of blood pressure (BP) measurement methodology. In this article, we aim to explain the ESC Guidelines position, specifically the conservative BP thresholds and a wider use of ambulatory BP measurement methods. In our opinion, the main reason behind this position is the introduction and a relatively widespread use of automatic office BP measurement (AOBP). On one hand, this method has questioned the results of the SPRINT trial – the key evidence source for the AHA Guidelines. On the other hand, AOBP has challenged the concept of “traditional office BP measurement”. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the current multiplicity of BP measurement methods and respective threshold values recommended for each method. It is essential to perform the office BP measurement correctly and thoroughly. Throughout all stages of the hypertensive patient management (diagnosis, antihypertensive treatment choice, and long-term observation), the use of out-of-clinic BP measurement is strongly advisable.

Österreichischer Blutdruckkonsens 2019

Erhöhter Blutdruck bleibt eine Hauptursache von kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen, Behinderung und frühzeitiger Sterblichkeit in Österreich, wobei die Raten an Diagnose, Behandlung und Kontrolle auch in rezenten Studien suboptimal sind. Das Management von Bluthochdruck ist eine häufige Herausforderung für Ärztinnen und Ärzte vieler Fachrichtungen. In einem Versuch, diagnostische und therapeutische Strategien zu standardisieren und letztendlich die Rate an gut kontrollierten Hypertoniker/innen zu erhöhen und dadurch kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen zu verhindern, haben 13 österreichische medizinische Fachgesellschaften die vorhandene Evidenz zur Prävention, Diagnose, Abklärung, Therapie und Konsequenzen erhöhten Blutdrucks gesichtet. Das hier vorgestellte Ergebnis ist der erste Österreichische Blutdruckkonsens. Die Autoren und die beteiligten Fachgesellschaften sind davon überzeugt, daß es einer gemeinsamen nationalen Anstrengung bedarf, die Blutdruck-assoziierte Morbidität und Mortalität in unserem Land zu verringern.

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 routine and automated office blood pressure measurement

OBJECTIVES

From April to October 2018, we implemented a blood pressure measurement quality improvement project at our Hypertension Center. We aimed to compare blood pressure measured using routine, non-standardized office blood pressure and Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial-like automated office blood pressure protocols.

METHODS

In 202 consecutive patients, we measured blood pressure using routine clinic methods and an automated office blood pressure protocol (5 min of rest followed by three blood pressure measurements at 1-min intervals).

RESULTS

The mean routine blood pressure was 145.6/76.4 mmHg and the mean automated office blood pressure was 135.3/70.1 mmHg. The mean paired difference in blood pressure was 10.3/6.3 mmHg, and Bland-Altman plots demonstrated wide limits of agreement. Using the systolic blood pressure goal of 130 mmHg, 26.9% of the patients not at goal by routine blood pressure were at goal by automated office blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Misclassifications of patient blood pressure control status and the wide variability between routine blood pressure and automated office blood pressure support the wider clinical implementation of automated office blood pressure to improve standardization, minimize incorrect blood pressure measurement and avoid over-treatment.

Guiding Hypertension Management Using Different Blood Pressure Monitoring Strategies (GYMNs study): comparison of three different blood pressure measurement methods: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Home blood pressure (BP) and unattended automated BP (uAOBP) monitoring have been recommended by guidelines for the care of hypertensive subjects. However, BP measurements in the peripheral arteries cannot serve as direct substitutes for their central counterparts. Moreover, the comparative effectiveness and safety of BP-guided strategies using these BP measuring devices have never been evaluated.

Methods/design

Patients with uncontrolled or newly diagnosed hypertension aged 20–90 years will be recruited via outpatient clinics and allocated into three arms by stratified randomization (baseline systolic BP 130–155 mmHg and 155–180 mmHg): home BP, uAOBP, and central BP-guided treatment. At each scheduled visit to the clinic, a patient’s BP will be measured by each of the three methods of measuring BP. The blood pressure from three different methods will be confirmed available at each visit. Patients and physicians will be blinded to the allocated interventions because they will use measured BP values in the clinic through a standardized report format. A common BP target for systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 130 mmHg is adopted for these BP-guided strategies. The primary outcome is the change of 24-h mean ambulatory SBP at 3 months. A key secondary outcome is to determine the percentage achieving their target BPs at 3 months and the decrease of left ventricular mass at 12 months.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial to assess the optimal guiding strategy for hypertension. It will help to define which BP monitoring method is the most effective for guiding the clinical management of hypertension. It will provide good evidence to support future guideline recommendations for BP monitoring devices.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03578848. Registered on 4 June 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3366-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hypertension

Recent guidelines on diagnosis and management of high blood pressure (BP) include substantial changes and several new concepts compared with previous guidelines. These are reviewed and their clinical implications are discussed in this article. The goal is to provide a practical reference to assist clinicians with up-to-date management of patients with high BP. Important issues include new diagnostic thresholds, out-of-office BP monitoring, intensified treatment goals, and a different approach to resistant hypertension. Finally, differences among guidelines, the persistent controversies that have led to them, and their implications for clinical practice are discussed.

Validation of Self-Reported Anthropometric Measures and Body Mass Index in a Subcohort of the DianaWeb Population Study

INTRODUCTION

DianaWeb is a community-based participatory project open to Italian breast cancer patients. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention in improving the prognosis after patients received diagnosis and surgery/chemotherapy. The DianaWeb study uses an interactive Web site (www.dianaweb.org) to monitor patients' lifestyles, and to obtain clinical and anthropometric data. Although detailed instructions for measuring height, body weight, waist circumference, and blood pressure (BP) are provided, individuals might tend to overestimate or underestimate those parameters. The aims of the present study were: (1) to compare self-recorded data with those from standardized ambulatory measurements; (2) to determine the trueness of a subject classification in the overweight/obesity or hypertensive subgroup on the basis of the patients' own measurements and estimates; and (3) to identify confounding variables.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared self-reported with ambulatory measurements in a subgroup of 200 randomly selected women of approximately 1000 enrolled in the DianaWeb study (from September 2016 to March 2018).

RESULTS

Bland-Altman analysis showed a close agreement for self-reported and ambulatory-measured height, weight, and body mass index (BMI). On the contrary, women overestimated waist circumference and underestimated BP. Cohen κ statistics showed fair agreement only for hypertension. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that BMI and diastolic BP self-measurements were biased according to age.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that self-reported height, weight, and BMI are satisfactorily accurate for patients in the DianaWeb study, such as accuracies of overweight/obese and central obesity classification, and that these data can be useful for our research.

Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings With Other Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement for Identifying Patients With Possible Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement involves recording several blood pressure (BP) readings using a fully automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer with the patient resting alone in a quiet place. Although several studies have shown AOBP measurement to be more accurate than routine office BP measurement and not subject to a "white coat effect," the cumulative evidence has not yet been systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association between AOBP and office BP readings measured in routine clinical practice and in research studies, and ambulatory BP recorded during awake hours, as the latter is a standard for predicting future cardiovascular events.

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from 2003 to April 25, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies on systolic and diastolic BP measurement by AOBP in comparison with awake ambulatory BP, routine office BP, and research BP measurements were included if they contained 30 patients or more.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Study characteristics were abstracted independently and random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pooled mean differences (95% CI) of systolic and diastolic BP between types of BP measurement.

RESULTS

Data were compiled from 31 articles comprising 9279 participants (4736 men and 4543 women). In samples with systolic AOBP of 130 mm Hg or more, routine office and research systolic BP readings were substantially higher than AOBP readings, with a pooled mean difference of 14.5 mm Hg (95% CI, 11.8-17.2 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 94.3%; P < .001) for routine office systolic BP readings and 7.0 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-9.1 mm Hg; n = 9; I2 = 85.7%; P < .001) for research systolic BP readings. Systolic awake ambulatory BP and AOBP readings were similar, with a pooled mean difference of 0.3 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7 mm Hg; n = 19; I2 = 90%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Automated office blood pressure readings, only when recorded properly with the patient sitting alone in a quiet place, are more accurate than office BP readings in routine clinical practice and are similar to awake ambulatory BP readings, with mean AOBP being devoid of any white coat effect. There has been some reluctance among physicians to adopt this technique because of uncertainty about its advantages compared with more traditional methods of recording BP during an office visit. Based on the evidence, AOBP should now be the preferred method for recording BP in routine clinical practice.

The effect of exercise on blood pressure in chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Management of hypertension in chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains a major challenge. We conducted a systematic review to assess whether exercise is an effective strategy for lowering blood pressure in this population.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of exercise on blood pressure in adults with non-dialysis CKD, stages 3-5. Outcomes were non-ambulatory systolic blood pressure (primary), other blood pressure parameters, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, pulse-wave velocity, and flow-mediated dilatation. Results were summarized using random effects models.

RESULTS

Twelve studies with 505 participants were included. Ten trials (335 participants) reporting non-ambulatory systolic blood pressure were meta-analysed. All included studies were a high risk of bias. Using the last available time point, exercise was not associated with an effect on systolic blood pressure (mean difference, MD -4.33 mmHg, 95% confidence interval, CI -9.04, 0.38). The MD after 12-16 and 24-26 weeks of exercise was significant (-4.93 mmHg, 95% CI -8.83, -1.03 and -10.94 mmHg, 95% CI -15.83, -6.05, respectively) but not at 48-52 weeks (1.07 mmHg, 95% CI -6.62, 8.77). Overall, exercise did not have an effect on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (-5.40 mmHg, 95% CI -12.67, 1.87) or after 48-52 weeks (-7.50 mmHg 95% CI -20.21, 5.21) while an effect was seen at 24 weeks (-18.00 mmHg, 95% CI -29.92, -6.08). Exercise did not have a significant effect on measures of arterial stiffness or endothelial function.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence from shorter term studies suggests that exercise is a potential strategy to lower blood pressure in CKD. However, to recommend exercise for blood pressure control in this population, high quality, longer term studies specifically designed to evaluate hypertension are needed.

Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods

There is increasing interest in unattended automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurement, which gives lower blood pressure values than the conventional auscultatory OBP. Whether unattended automated OBP differs from standardized attended automated OBP performed using the same device and measurement protocol remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies (aggregate data) comparing unattended vs attended automated OBP using the same device and measurement protocol (conditions, number of measurements, visits) was performed. Ten eligible studies (n = 1004, weighted age 60.8 ± 4.2 [SD] years, 55% males) were analyzed. Unattended OBP (pooled systolic/diastolic 133.9 [95% CI: 129.7, 138]/80.6 [95% CI: 77, 84.2] mm Hg) did not differ from attended OBP (135.3 [95% CI: 130.9, 139.6]/81 [95% CI: 77.6, 84.3] mm Hg); pooled systolic OBP difference -1.3, 95% CI: -4.3, 1.7 mm Hg and diastolic -0.4, 95% CI: -1.2, 0.3 mm Hg. Nine of ten studies achieved high quality score and no publication bias was identified. Meta-regression analysis did not reveal any effect of age, gender, or attended systolic OBP on the unattended-attended systolic OBP difference (P = NS for all). However, there was a trend toward higher attended than unattended OBP at higher OBP levels. These data suggest that, when the same device and measurement protocol are used, attended automated OBP provides similar blood pressure values as unattended automated OBP. Although unattended automated OBP is theoretically advantageous as it ensures that standardized conditions and measurement protocol are used, attended automated OBP, if carefully performed, appears to be a reasonable and practical alternative.

Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: Implications for clinical practice and trial design

Discrepancies between clinic and research blood pressure (BP) measurements lead to uncertainties in translating hypertension management guidelines into practice. We assessed the concordance between standardized automated clinic BP, from a primary care clinic, and research BP, from a randomized trial conducted at the same site. Mean single-visit clinic BP was higher by 4.4/3.8 mm Hg (P = 0.007/<0.001). Concordance in systolic BP (SBP) improved with closer proximity of measurements (difference = 2.5 mm Hg, P = 0.21 for visits within 7 days), but not averaging across multiple visits (difference =5.1(9.2) mm Hg; P < 0.001). This discrepancy was greater among female participants. Clinic-based difference in SBP between two visits was more variable than research-based change (SD = 19.6 vs 14.0; P = 0.002); a 2-arm trial using clinic measurements would need 95% more participants to achieve comparable power. Implementation of a bundled standardization intervention decreased discrepancies between clinic and research BP, compared to prior reports. However, clinic measurements remained higher and more variable, suggesting treatment to research-based targets may lead to overtreatment and using clinic BP approximately halves power in trials.

Comparison of awake ambulatory blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using linear regression analysis in untreated patients in routine clinical practice

The recent American hypertension guidelines recommended a threshold of 130/80 mmHg to define hypertension on the basis of office, home or ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Despite recognizing the potential advantages of automated office (AO)BP, the recommendations only considered conventional office BP, without providing supporting evidence and without taking into account the well documented difference between office BP recorded in research studies versus routine clinical practice, the latter being about 10/7 mmHg higher. Accordingly, we examined the relationship between AOBP and awake ambulatory BP, which the guidelines considered to be a better predictor of future cardiovascular risk than office BP. AOBP readings and 24-hour ambulatory BP recordings were obtained in 514 untreated patients referred for ambulatory BP monitoring in routine clinical practice. The relationship between mean AOBP and mean awake ambulatory BP was examined using linear regression analysis with and without adjustment for age and sex. Special attention was given to the thresholds of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg, the latter value being the recognized threshold for defining hypertension using awake ambulatory BP, home BP and AOBP in other guidelines. The mean adjusted AOBP of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg corresponded to mean awake ambulatory BP values of 132.1/81.5 and 134.4/84.6 mmHg, respectively. These findings support the use of AOBP as the method of choice for determining office BP in routine clinical practice, regardless of which of the two thresholds are used for diagnosing hypertension, with an AOBP of 135/85 mmHg being somewhat closer to the corresponding value for awake ambulatory BP.

2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension

: Document reviewers: Guy De Backer (ESC Review Co-ordinator) (Belgium), Anthony M. Heagerty (ESH Review Co-ordinator) (UK), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Murielle Bochud (Switzerland), Claudio Borghi (Italy), Pierre Boutouyrie (France), Jana Brguljan (Slovenia), Héctor Bueno (Spain), Enrico G. Caiani (Italy), Bo Carlberg (Sweden), Neil Chapman (UK), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Jean-Philippe Collet (France), Ioan Mircea Coman (Romania), Peter W. de Leeuw (The Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (The Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Hans-Christoph Diener (Germany), Maria Dorobantu (Romania), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Csaba Farsang (Hungary), Marc Ferrini (France), Ian M. Graham (Ireland), Guido Grassi (Italy), Hermann Haller (Germany), F. D. Richard Hobbs (UK), Bojan Jelakovic (Croatia), Catriona Jennings (UK), Hugo A. Katus (Germany), Abraham A. Kroon (The Netherlands), Christophe Leclercq (France), Dragan Lovic (Serbia), Empar Lurbe (Spain), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Theresa A. McDonagh (UK), Franz Messerli (Switzerland), Maria Lorenza Muiesan (Italy), Uwe Nixdorff (Germany), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Gianfranco Parati (Italy), Joep Perk (Sweden), Massimo Francesco Piepoli (Italy), Jorge Polonia (Portugal), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Stefano F. Rimoldi (Switzerland), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Naveed Sattar (UK), Petar M. Seferovic (Serbia), Iain A. Simpson (UK), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Alice V. Stanton (Ireland), Philippe van de Borne (Belgium), Panos Vardas (Greece), Massimo Volpe (Italy), Sven Wassmann (Germany), Stephan Windecker (Switzerland), Jose Luis Zamorano (Spain).The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these Guidelines are available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines.

Office blood pressure measurement in the 21st century

Measurement of blood pressure (BP) using the auscultatory method must follow specific rules and conditions to be reliable. Nonetheless, these requirements are often not followed in clinical practice, resulting in inaccurate BP readings. Simply replacing manual sphygmomanometers with an oscillometric device may still produce readings that are associated with a white coat effect. These limitations can be overcome by using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer that automatically records multiple readings with the patient resting quietly and alone, called automated office (AO)BP. AOBP produces office readings with a reduced white coat effect, which are also similar to the awake ambulatory BP. There is also evidence that AOBP is a better predictor of target organ damage than attended office BP. Furthermore, clinical outcome data support AOBP as having both a similar diagnostic threshold as awake ambulatory BP and a lower treatment target. Using AOBP in clinical practice simplifies recording office BP by not requiring an additional period of rest before activation of the device and by not having staff present during the actual measurements. Recent studies have reported that automatic BP measurements taken by staff in research studies with close adherence to guidelines using AOBP devices may produce similar readings to AOBP. Further research is needed to determine the best method for recording BP at systolic targets < 130 mm Hg and the relationship of office BP to ambulatory BP and home BP.