Office blood pressure measurement types: Different methodology—Different clinical conclusions

Blood pressure measurement and assessment of arterial structure and function: an expert group position paper

Measuring blood pressure (BP) and investigating arterial hemodynamics are essential in understanding cardiovascular disease and assessing cardiovascular risk. Several methods are used to measure BP in the doctor's office, at home, or over 24 h under ambulatory conditions. Similarly, several noninvasive methods have been introduced for assessing arterial structure and function; these methods differ for the large arteries, the small ones, and the capillaries. Consequently, when studying arterial hemodynamics, the clinician is faced with a multitude of assessment methods whose technical details, advantages, and limitations are sometimes unclear. Moreover, the conditions and procedures for their optimal implementation, and/or the reference normality values for the parameters they yield are not always taken into sufficient consideration. Therefore, a practice guideline summarizing the main methods and their use in clinical practice is needed. This expert group position paper was developed by an international group of scientists after a two-day meeting during which each of the most used methods and techniques for blood pressure measurement and arterial function and structure evaluation were presented and discussed, focusing on their advantages, limitations, indications, normal values, and their pragmatic clinical application.

Exploring the link between blood pressure variability and atrial fibrillation: current insights and future directions

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart rhythm disorder, especially in people over the age of 50, which affects more than 40 million people worldwide. Many studies have highlighted the association between hypertension with the development of AF. Blood pressure variability (BPV) is a dynamic size obtained by recording blood pressure oscillations using specific readings and at specific time intervals. A multitude of internal and external factors shape BPV while at the same time constituting a common pathogenetic pathway with the development of AF. Until recently, BPV has been applied exclusively in preclinical and clinical studies, without significant implications in clinical practice. Indeed, even from the research side, the determination of BPV is limited to patients without AF due to doubts about the accuracy of its measurement methods in patients with AF. In this review, we present the current evidence on common pathogenic pathways between BPV and AF, the reliability of quantification of BPV in patients with AF, the prognostic role of BPV in these patients, and discuss the future clinical implications of BPV in patients with AF.

The impact of sphygmomanometer placement and cuff placement on blood pressure measurements

Background

Hypertension is the most significant global risk factor for mortality and morbidity, making standardized blood pressure measurement crucial.

Objectives

To investigate whether the location of blood pressure monitors and the positioning of cuffs yield differing results in blood pressure measurements.

Methods

Patients admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Jiujiang College between 1 January 2022 and 30 June 2023 were enrolled in this study and randomly allocated into four groups. These groups were defined based on the positioning of monitoring equipment as follows: varied placements of cuffs on automatic blood pressure monitors, different heights for mercury column blood pressure monitors, varied heights for automatic blood pressure monitors, and different orientations for the cuff airbag tubes on electrocardiogram monitors. Blood pressure was measured and recorded for each group, followed by an analysis of the variations in readings across the different setups.

Results

In the first cohort of 763 individuals, mean systolic blood pressure measured at the standard upper arm site was 128.8 ± 10.5 mmHg, compared to 125.3 ± 10.4 mmHg at the elbow fossa. The corresponding diastolic pressures were 79.2 ± 10.7 and 75.0 ± 10.6 mmHg, respectively. The difference in systolic pressure between these positions was significant at 3.48 ± 3.22 mmHg (t₁ = 29.91, p₁ < 0.001) and for diastolic pressure at 4.23 ± 1.31 mmHg (t₂ = 88.98, p₂ < 0.001). For the subsequent groups, involving 253, 312, and 225 individuals, respectively, blood pressure measurements were analyzed and compared across different methods within each group. All p-values exceeded 0.05, indicating no statistically significant differences.

Conclusions

Blood pressure values measured at the elbow fossa position using an upper arm-type automatic sphygmomanometer were found to be lower than those measured at the upper arm position, with a difference of 3.48 mmHg for systolic and 4.23 mmHg for diastolic pressures. It is therefore essential to position the cuff correctly, specifically 2-3 cm above the elbow fossa, when utilizing an upper arm-type automatic sphygmomanometer for blood pressure monitoring. Conversely, the placement of the mercury column sphygmomanometer and the automated sphygmomanometer at varying heights had no significant effect on blood pressure readings. Similarly, the orientation of the electrocardiogram's cuffed balloon tube, whether facing upward or downward, did not influence blood pressure measurement outcomes.

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.

 

Implementation of the 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of hypertension in primary care: the HYPEDIA study

The HYPEDIA study aimed at evaluating the implementation of the 2018 European guidelines for treating hypertension in primary care. A nationwide prospective non-interventional cross-sectional study was performed in consecutive untreated or treated hypertensives recruited mainly in primary care in Greece. Participants' characteristics, office blood pressure (BP) (triplicate automated measurements, Microlife BPA3 PC) and treatment changes were recorded on a cloud platform. A total of 3,122 patients (mean age 64 ± 12.5 [SD] years, 52% males) were assessed by 181 doctors and 3 hospital centers. In 772 untreated hypertensives (25%), drug treatment was initiated in the majority, with monotherapy in 53.4%, two-drug combination in 36.3%, and three drugs in 10.3%. Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy was initiated in 30%, ARB/calcium channel blocker (CCB) 20%, ARB/thiazide 8%, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)-based 19%. Of the combinations used, 97% were in single-pill. Among 977 treated hypertensives aged <65 years, 79% had BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg (systolic and/or diastolic), whereas among 1,373 aged ≥65 years, 66% had BP ≥ 140/80 mmHg. ARBs were used in 69% of treated hypertensives, CCBs 47%, ACEis 19%, diuretics 39%, beta-blockers 19%. Treatment modification was decided in 53% of treated hypertensives aged <65 years with BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg and in 62% of those ≥65 years with BP ≥ 140/80 mmHg. Renin-angiotensin system blocker-based therapy constitutes the basis of antihypertensive drug treatment in most patients in primary care, with wide use of single-pill combinations. In almost half of treated uncontrolled hypertensives, treatment was not intensified, suggesting suboptimal implementation of the guidelines and possible physician inertia.

Team-Based Care for Improving Hypertension Management: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: We evaluated the effect on long term blood pressure (BP) of an interprofessional team-based care (TBC) intervention, involving nurses, pharmacists, and physicians, compared to usual care.

Methods: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled study in ambulatory clinics and community pharmacies in Switzerland (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02511093). Uncontrolled treated hypertensive patients were randomized to TBC or usual care (UC). In the TBC group, nurses and pharmacists met patients every 6 weeks to measure BP, assess lifestyle, support medication adherence, and provide health education for 6 months. After each visit, they wrote a report to the physician who could adjust antihypertensive therapy. The outcome was the intention-to-treat difference in mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) and control (<135/85 mmHg) at 6 and 12 months.

Results: Eighty-nine patients (60 men/29 women; mean (SD) age: 61(12) year) were randomized to TBC (n = 43) or UC (n = 46). At baseline, mean (SD) BP was 144(10)/90(8) mmHg and 147(12)/87(11) mmHg in the TBC and UC groups. At 6 months, the between-groups difference in daytime systolic ABPM was−3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI):−10 to +4; p = 0.45]; at 12 months, this difference was−7 mmHg [95% CI:−13 to−2; p = 0.01]. At 6 months, the between-groups difference in daytime diastolic ABPM was +2 mmHg [95% CI:−1 to +6; p = 0.20]; at 12 months, this difference was−2 mmHg [95% CI:−5 to +2; 0.42]. Upon adjustment for baseline covariates including baseline BP, the between-groups differences at 6 and 12 months were maintained. At 6 months, there was no difference in BP control. At 12 months, the TBC group tended to have a better control in systolic BP (p = 0.07) but not in diastolic BP (p = 0.33).

Conclusion: While there was not significant effect on BP at 6 months of follow-up, the TBC intervention can help decrease long-term systolic BP among uncontrolled hypertensive patients.

Blood pressure measurement methodology and technology in the SWEET diabetes centers: An international SWEET database survey

INTRODUCTION

The accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurement is a prerequisite for the reliable diagnosis and management of hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

This survey evaluated the use of office and out-of-office BP measurements and the antihypertensive pharmacological treatment in expert pediatric diabetes centers.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed in 78 reference pediatric diabetes centers of the SWEET international consortium. The methodology, devices, indications, and interpretation of office BP measurements (OBPM), 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM), and the preference for antihypertensive drug treatment was assessed. A grading score was developed to evaluate centers for overall BP measurement performance.

RESULTS

Fifty-two centers responded. The average score for OBPM methodology was 72.5%, for technology 77.5% and the overall center score was 74.75%.The majority of the centers used appropriate methodology and technology, however, there was heterogeneity among them. Manual auscultatory or automated devices specifically validated for children were used by 26/52 centers. ABPM was recommended by 35/52 centers (27/35 had health insurance coverage) and HBPM by 18/52 centers. The BP measurement methodology and devices used for ABPM and HBPM were frequently inadequate. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors were the most frequently prescribed drugs for treating hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of SWEET pediatric diabetes centers use adequate methodology and devices for BP measurement. ABPM is recommended by two thirds of the centers, whereas HBPM is less widely used. Further improvement in the quality of office and out-of-office BP measurements and harmonization among centers is necessary according to current guidelines.

Optimización del desempeño del observador al medir la presión arterial en el consultorio: declaración de posición de la Comisión Lancet de Hipertensión

La hipertensión arterial es una causa modificable muy prevalente de enfermedades cardiovasculares, accidentes cerebrovasculares y muerte. Medir con exactitud la presión arterial es fundamental, dado que un error de medición de 5 mmHg puede ser motivo para clasificar incorrectamente como hipertensas a 84 millones de personas en todo el mundo. En la presente declaración de posición se resumen los procedimientos para optimizar el desempeño del observador al medir la presión arterial en el consultorio, con atención especial a los entornos de ingresos bajos o medianos, donde esta medición se ve complicada por limitaciones de recursos y tiempo, sobrecarga de trabajo y falta de suministro eléctrico. Es posible reducir al mínimo muchos errores de medición con una preparación adecuada de los pacientes y el uso de técnicas estandarizadas. Para simplificar la medición y prevenir errores del observador, deben usarse tensiómetros semiautomáticos o automáticos de manguito validados, en lugar del método por auscultación. Pueden ayudar también la distribución de tareas, la creación de un área específica de medición y el uso de aparatos semiautomáticos o de carga solar. Es fundamental garantizar la capacitación inicial y periódica de los integrantes del equipo de salud. Debe considerarse la implementación de programas de certificación de bajo costo y fácilmente accesibles con el objetivo de mejorar la medición de la presión arterial.

Optimizing observer performance of clinic blood pressure measurement: a position statement from the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group

High blood pressure (BP) is a highly prevalent modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death. Accurate BP measurement is critical, given that a 5-mmHg measurement error may lead to incorrect hypertension status classification in 84 million individuals worldwide. This position statement summarizes procedures for optimizing observer performance in clinic BP measurement, with special attention given to low-to-middle-income settings, where resource limitations, heavy workloads, time constraints, and lack of electrical power make measurement more challenging. Many measurement errors can be minimized by appropriate patient preparation and standardized techniques. Validated semi-automated/automated upper arm cuff devices should be used instead of auscultation to simplify measurement and prevent observer error. Task sharing, creating a dedicated measurement workstation, and using semi-automated or solar-charged devices may help. Ensuring observer training, and periodic re-training, is critical. Low-cost, easily accessible certification programs should be considered to facilitate best BP measurement practice.

The Impact of Measurement Methods on Office Blood Pressure and Management of Hypertension in General Practice

INTRODUCTION

The use of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) versus attended automated (aAutoOBP) and manual auscultatory office blood pressure (AuscOBP) measurements is a topic of current controversy.

AIM

To evaluate the differences between OBP measurements methods in the general practice (GP) setting.

METHODS

We first compared aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP in 42 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 1). Secondly, we compared AuscOBP to uAutoOBP measurements in 133 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 2). In addition, we analyzed the achieved OBP targets as recommended in the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines in group 2.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in group 1 was 71 years (range 34-89 years, 54.8% females). The aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP systolic (131.7 and 131.6 mmHg) and diastolic (83.4 and 82.4 mmHg) mean values were not significantly different. The patient characteristics in group 2 were similar to group 1. We observed a significant difference between AuscOBP and uAutoOBP measurement for both systolic (149.4 versus 129.5 mm Hg) and diastolic (85.4 versus 81.6 mm Hg, p < 0.0001, respectively). Accordingly, 20.3% and 45.9% of patients reached the overall 2018 ESC/ESH systolic and diastolic OBP targets of < 140/80 mmHg according to AuscOBP and uAutoOBP (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The attended versus unattended status of automated OBP measurements had no impact on OBP values in GP. However, significantly higher OBP values and lower rates of achieved target OBP were observed by using AuscOBP measurements by physicians in comparison to automated OBP recordings.

Determination of optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated measurements in subjects with cardiovascular disease-Analysis of a SPRINT trial subpopulation

Automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is recommended for diagnosing hypertension; however, optimal treatment targets using this method are not established. Discrepancies between automated and office measurements of blood pressure have been described, producing uncertainty regarding the use of AOBPM in clinical practice. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results improved our understanding of target AOBPM systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels; however, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) targets remain unknown. Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal on-treatment DBP range. The analysis was performed on the participants of the SPRINT trial who had hypertension and prior cardiovascular disease. We analyzed the data of 1470 participants (mean age 70.3 ± 9.3 years, 24.1% female) selected from the SPRINT trial database of National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. The mean achieved SBP and DBP were 127.9 ± 10.7 and 68.3 ± 9.4 mm Hg, respectively. Most of the participants (57.4%) had a DBP lower than 70 mm Hg, while only 11.7% had DPB ≥80 mm Hg. Clinical composite endpoint was defined as myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes. There were 159 (10.8%) clinical endpoint events. The participants with on-treatment AOBPM DBP range of 68.6-78.6 mm Hg showed the lowest hazard risk of a clinical composite endpoint. These results correspond to the office DBP range of 70-80 mm Hg recommended in ESC guidelines. This is the first attempt to determine the range of optimal DBP values using population-based AOBPM in patients with prior cardiovascular disease.

Automated Office-Based Blood Pressure Measurement: an Overview and Guidance for Implementation in Primary Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purposes of this study are to review evidence supporting the use of automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement and to provide practical guidance for implementing it in clinical settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mean AOBP readings correlate with awake ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) values and predict cardiovascular outcomes better than conventional techniques. However, heterogeneity among readings suggests that AOBP does not replace ABPM. Blood pressure (BP) measurement protocols differ among commonly described AOBP devices, but all produce valid BP estimates. Rest periods should not precede AOBP with BpTRU devices but should occur before use with Omron HEM-907 and Microlife WatchBP Office devices. Attended and unattended AOBP appear to produce similar results. This review also describes a framework to aid AOBP's implementation in clinical practice. Evidence supports AOBP as the preferred method for measuring BP in office settings, but this approach should be a complement to out-of-office measurements, such as self-measured BP monitoring or 24-h ABPM, not a substitute for it.

Automated office blood pressure measurements in primary care are misleading in more than one third of treated hypertensives: The VALENTINE-Greece Home Blood Pressure Monitoring study

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the diagnostic reliability of automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurements in treated hypertensive patients in primary care by evaluating the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) phenomena.

METHODS

Primary care physicians, nationwide in Greece, assessed consecutive hypertensive patients on stable treatment using OBP (1 visit, triplicate measurements) and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements (7 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements). All measurements were performed using validated automated devices with bluetooth capacity (Omron M7 Intelli-IT). Uncontrolled OBP was defined as ≥140/90 mmHg, and uncontrolled HBP was defined as ≥135/85 mmHg.

RESULTS

A total of 790 patients recruited by 135 doctors were analyzed (age: 64.5 ± 14.4 years, diabetics: 21.4%, smokers: 20.6%, and average number of antihypertensive drugs: 1.6 ± 0.8). OBP (137.5 ± 9.4/84.3 ± 7.7 mmHg, systolic/diastolic) was higher than HBP (130.6 ± 11.2/79.9 ± 8 mmHg; difference 6.9 ± 11.6/4.4 ± 7.6 mmHg, p < 0.001). WCH phenomenon (high OBP with low HBP) was observed in 22.7% of the patients, MUCH (low OBP with high HBP) in 15.8%, uncontrolled hypertension (high OBP with high HBP) in 29.9%, and controlled hypertension (low OBP with low HBP) in 31.6%. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, WCH was determined by stage-1 systolic hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 8.6, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 5.7, 13.1) and female gender (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1, 2.4), whereas MUCH was determined by high-normal systolic OBP (OR 6.2, 95% CI 3.8, 10.1) and male gender (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In primary care, automated OBP measurements are misleading in approximately 40% of treated hypertensive patients. HBP monitoring is mandatory to avoid overtreatment of subjects with WCH phenomenon and prevent undertreatment and subsequent excess cardiovascular disease in MUCH.

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.