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

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.

Comparison of Office Blood Pressure, Automated Unattended Office Blood Pressure, Home Blood Pressure, and 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have reported differences of blood pressure (BP) according to BP measurement methods, studies in Korean population were scarce. This study aimed to compare BP differences according to different BP measurement methods and assess hypertension phenotype.

METHODS

This prospective study recruited 183 individuals (mean 55.9 years; 51.4% males). The BP measurements included office BP (auscultatory attended office BP [ausAOBP], automated attended office BP [aAOBP], and automated unattended office BP [aUAOBP]) and out-of-office BP (home BP [HBP] and ambulatory BP [ABP]) measurements taken within one week of each other.

RESULTS

The mean systolic/diastolic BP differences between ausAOBP and other BPs according to different BP measurement methods were 3.5/2.3 mmHg for aAOBP; 6.1/2.9 mmHg for aUAOBP; 15.0/7.3 mmHg for daytime ABP; and 10.6/3.4 mmHg for average HBP. The increasing disparity between ausAOBP and other BPs in multivariable regression analysis was significantly associated with increasing BP. The prevalence of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension in 107 individuals not taking antihypertensive medication was 25.4-26.8% and 30.6-33.3% based on ausAOBP, daytime ABP, and average HBP, respectively. The prevalence of white-coat uncontrolled hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension in 76 of those taking antihypertensive medication was 31.7-34.1% and 17.1-37.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a large disparity between office BP and out-of-office BP which became more pronounced when office BP by auscultation increased, suggesting that various BP measurement methods should be used to more accurately assess BP status.

Impact of Successive Office Blood Pressure Measurements During a Single Visit on Cardiovascular Risk Prediction: Analysis of CARTaGENE

BACKGROUND

Multiple office blood pressure (BP) readings correlate more closely with ambulatory BP than single readings. Whether they are associated with long-term outcomes and improve cardiovascular risk prediction is unknown. Our objective was to assess the long-term impact of multiple office BP readings.

METHODS

We used data from CARTaGENE, a population-based survey comprising individuals aged 40 to 70 years. Three BP readings (BP1, BP2, and BP3) at 2-minute intervals were obtained using a semiautomated device. They were averaged to generate BP1-2, BP2-3, and BP1-2-3 for systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP. Cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular event [MACE]: cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction) during a 10-year follow-up were recorded. Associations with MACE were obtained using adjusted Cox models. Predictive performance was assessed with 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease scores and their associated C statistics.

RESULTS

In the 17 966 eligible individuals, 2378 experienced a MACE during follow-up. Crude SBP values ranged from 122.5 to 126.5 mm Hg. SBP3 had the strongest association with MACE incidence (hazard ratio, 1.10 [1.05-1.15] per SD) and SBP1 the weakest (hazard ratio, 1.06 [1.01-1.10]). All models including SBP1 (SBP1, SBP1-2, and SBP1-2-3) were underperformed. At a given SBP value, the excess MACE risk conferred by SBP3 was 2× greater than SBP1. In atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease scores, SBP3 yielded the highest C statistic, significantly higher than most other SBP measures. In contrast to SBP, all diastolic BP readings yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular risk prediction is improved by successive office SBP values, especially when the first reading is discarded. These findings reinforce the necessity of using multiple office BP readings.

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

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

Automated Office Blood Pressure and the Impact of Attendance and Rest on Diagnostic Accuracy

BACKGROUND

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) using 3-5 measurements taken with an oscillometric device with or without an attendant in the room may decrease "white coat" effect. We evaluated the impact of the presence or absence of the attendant and rest on BP and diagnosis of hypertension.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 133 adults aged 18-85 with high BP at baseline (≥140/90 mm Hg), no hypertensive diagnosis and no antihypertensive medications to either attended AOBP first, unattended second, or unattended AOBP first, attended second. Outcomes included within-person BP difference for attended vs. unattended measurements; 5 vs. 15 minutes of rest; and the diagnostic performance of AOBP compared with daytime automated blood pressure measurement (ABPM).

RESULTS

We found no significant differences between attended and unattended AOBP (mean difference attended - unattended [95% confidence interval, CI], systolic 0.14 mm Hg [-0.78, 1.06]; diastolic 0.16 mm Hg [-0.45, 0.78]) or by rest time (mean difference 15 - 5 minutes [95% CI], systolic -0.45 mm Hg [-1.36, 0.47]; diastolic 0.61 mm Hg [-1.23, 0.003]). AOBP was lower than mean daytime ABPM, regardless of attendance or rest (after 5 minutes rest systolic -3.6 and diastolic -2.55 mm Hg, P = 0.001 for both comparisons). Using daytime ABPM of ≥135/85 mm Hg as the diagnostic threshold, AOBP sensitivity and specificity after 5 minutes of rest were 71.0% and 54.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence or absence of a clinic attendant during AOBP measurement and the amount of rest time before AOBP measurements had no effects on BP. AOBP measurements have low sensitivity and specificity for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Current applications and limitations of European guidelines on blood pressure measurement: implications for clinical practice

Hypertension is the most common cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of major CV outcomes, including myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, renal disease and death due to CV causes. Effective control of hypertension is of key importance for reducing the risk of hypertension-related CV complications, as well as for reducing the global burden of CV mortality. However, several studies reported relatively poor rates of control of high blood pressure (BP) in a setting of real-life practice. To improve hypertension management and control, national and international scientific societies proposed several educational and therapeutic interventions, among which the systematic implementation of out-of-office BP measurements represents a key element. Indeed, proper assessment of individual BP profile, including home, clinic and 24-h ambulatory BP levels, may improve awareness of the disease, ensure high level of adherence to prescribed medications in treated hypertensive patients, and thus contribute to ameliorate BP control in treated hypertensive outpatients. In line with these purposes, recent European guidelines have released practical recommendations and clear indications on how, when and how properly measuring BP levels in different clinical settings, with different techniques and different methods. This review aimed at discussing current applications and potential limitations of European guidelines on how to measure BP in office and out-of-office conditions, and their potential implications in the daily clinical management of hypertension.

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.

Automated office blood pressure measurement by elderly patients in the waiting room

OBJECTIVE

Unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) may be a better estimate of true blood pressure (BP) than conventional office BP by physicians or nurses. However, measurement of AOBP is cumbersome in general clinical practice. We compared unattended AOBP by the patients themselves using the rigid cuff in the waiting room with attended AOBP and home BP (HBP) (N = 72).

METHODS

Unattended AOBP by patients was measured in the waiting room using a rigid cuff with the fully automated device (Omron, HEM-907, triple BP readings taken at 1-min intervals after 5 min of rest). Attended AOBP was measured using a soft cuff by a physician in an examination room without specific resting time. HBP was measured for 5 consecutive days.

RESULTS

The mean age was 76.5 ± 8.6 years. The mean systolic unattended AOBP by patients, attended AOBP and HBP were 139.3 ± 16.6, 144.8 ± 17.1 and 139.1 ± 14.4 mmHg, respectively. Unattended AOBP by patients was significantly related to attended AOBP (r = 0.798; P < 0.01) and to HBP (r = 0.404; P < 0.001). It was significantly lower than attended AOBP (difference 5.5 ± 10.7 mmHg; P < 0.001) and comparable with HBP (difference 0.26 ± 17.0 mmHg; P = 0.90) in Bland-Altman plots. However, 22% of patients had a difference of over 20 mmHg between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP. Multivariate regression demonstrated older age (B = -0.73; P = 0.002) to be related to the difference between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP.

CONCLUSION

The mean unattended AOBP by patients was lower than attended AOBP and comparable with HBP, but older age affected the difference between unattended AOBP by patients and HBP.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison between unattended automated office blood pressure and conventional office blood pressure under the environment of health checkup among Japanese general population

Unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement has been endorsed as the preferred in-office measurement modality in recent Canadian and American clinical practice guidelines. However, the difference between AOBP and conventional office blood pressure (CBP) under the environment of a health checkup remains unclear. We aimed to identify the clinical significance of AOBP as compared to CBP under the environment of a health checkup. There were 491 participants (333 females, mean age of 62.5 years) who were at least 20 years old, including 179 participants who were previously diagnosed with hypertension. Mean AOBPs were 131.8 ± 20.9/76.6 ± 11.7 mm Hg, and CBPs were 135.6 ± 21.6/77.3 ± 11.5 mm Hg. There was a difference of 3.9 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 0.8 mm Hg in diastolic BP between AOBP and CBP. In all participants, SBP and pulse pressure, as well as the white coat effect (WCE), increased with age. The cutoff value used was 140/90 mm Hg for CBP and 135/85 mm Hg for AOBP, and the prevalence of WCE and masked hypertension effect (MHE) was 12.4% and 14.1%, respectively. Even in a health checkup environment of the general population, there was a difference between the AOBP and CBP, and the WCE was observed more strongly in the elderly with a history of hypertension, suggesting that a combination of AOBP with CBP may be useful in detecting WCE and MHE in all clinical scenarios including health checkups, and help solve the "hypertension paradox" not only in Japan but in all over the world.

Are Unattended Blood Pressure Measurements Necessary in All Patients Visiting an Outpatient Cardiology Clinic?

INTRODUCTION

Unattended automatic office blood pressure (BP) measurement has given new evidence regarding treatment goals.

AIM

We aimed to explore any differences between unattended and conventional office BP measurements in different groups of patients visiting a European Society of Hypertension (ESH)  Excellence Centre.

METHODS

We performed two unattended (Microlife Watch BP Home) followed by a single attended (mercury sphygmomanometer) BP measurement in 310 patients (mean age 62 ± 15 years, 151 males, 64% hypertensives and 36% normotensive individuals) visiting our ESH Centre for a scheduled follow-up. Office BP < 140 mmHg (systolic) and < 90 mmHg (diastolic) were characterized as controlled or normal in hypertensives and normotensive individuals, respectively.

RESULTS

Attended BP (systolic/diastolic) was higher than unattended BP in total population (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02) and hypertensives (p < 0.001). In hypertensives, attended BP was higher than unattended BP regardless of age, smoking habit, obesity or controlled BP status but it was similar to unattended in diabetic patients. In normotensive individuals, attended BP was higher than unattended BP in older (p = 0.04), non-smoker (p = 0.002) and non-diabetic (p = 0.02) subjects. Finally, unattended BP was important for treatment decisions only in a small group of non-diabetic hypertensive patients (7%) whose unattended BP was controlled while attended BP was uncontrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

Unattended BP was lower than attended BP in the majority of hypertensive patients. However, it was useful only in a small percentage of non diabetic hypertensive patients in order to take appropriate treatment plan decisions.

Blood Pressure Measurement: A KDOQI Perspective

The majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have elevated blood pressure (BP). In patients with CKD, hypertension is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, progression of CKD, and all-cause mortality. New guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend new thresholds and targets for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in patients with and without CKD. A new aspect of the guidelines is the recommendation for measurement of out-of-office BP to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and guide therapy. In this KDOQI (Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) perspective, we review the recommendations for accurate BP measurement in the office, at home, and with ambulatory BP monitoring. Regardless of location, validated devices and appropriate cuff sizes should be used. In the clinic and at home, proper patient preparation and positioning are critical. Patients should receive information about the importance of BP measurement techniques and be encouraged to advocate for adherence to guideline recommendations. Implementing appropriate BP measurement in routine practice is feasible and should be incorporated in system-wide efforts to improve the care of patients with hypertension. Hypertension is the number 1 chronic disease risk factor in the world; BP measurements in the office, at home, and with ambulatory BP monitoring should adhere to recommendations from the AHA.

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.