Attended Versus Unattended Blood Pressure Measurement in a Real Life Setting

Prevalence of masked hypertension in attended versus unattended office blood pressure measurement

There is a controversial debate regarding whether unattended blood pressure (BP) measurement should be regarded as the new gold standard of office BP measurement. Unattended BP measurement eliminates the white-coat effect and reduces external influences on the patient. On the other hand, it might underestimate real-life BP. The present study compares the prevalence of masked hypertension using attended versus unattended office BP measurements. We performed a cross-sectional study on 213 patients in a general practitioner's outpatient clinic and compared attended and unattended office BP with 24h-ambulatory BP monitoring (24h-ABPM). Masked hypertension was defined as pressure ≥135/85 mmHg in daytime ABPM with office systolic BP < 140/90 mmHg. Median attended and unattended office BPs were 140/86 and 134/80 mmHg with a median 24h-BP of 129/79 mmHg and daytime ABP of 133/82 mmHg. The number of patients with masked hypertension was 45/213 (21.2%) using unattended and 23/213 (10.8%) using attended office BP measurements (p < .0001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a 7.4 mmHg systolic and 6.2 mmHg diastolic bias between the attended versus unattended office BP, and two systolic and -1.7 mmHg diastolic biases between the unattended office BP and daytime ambulatory BP. In linear regression analysis, an unattended office BP of 134 mmHg corresponded to 140 mmHg in attended BP measurement. Using a cut-off of 135/85 mmHg instead of 140/90 mmHg in unattended office BP measurement, the rate of masked hypertension was 26/213 (12.2%). Thus, unattended office BP measurement results in a substantial increase in the prevalence of masked hypertension using the traditional definition of hypertension. The present findings suggest that it might be reasonable to use a definition of 135/85 mmHg.

Comparison of the Omron HeartGuide to the Welch Allyn ProBP 3400 blood pressure monitor

Hypertension affects approximately 100 million U.S. adults and is the leading single contributing risk factor to all-cause mortality. Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential in the treatment of BP, and a number of devices exist for monitoring. Recently, a new watch-type design was released, the Omron HeartGuide (BP8000), with claims to provide clinically accurate BP measurement while also tracking activity and sleep similar to smart watches. The aim of this research was done in two studies: (1) evaluation of the HeartGuide device for measurement of resting BP and heart rate (HR); and (2) assessment of the HeartGuide for BP, HR, step-counting and sleep monitoring during activities of daily living. Study 1 compared the Omron HeartGuide to the previously validated Welch Allyn ProBP 3400 following a modified version of the Universal Standard for validation of BP measuring devices set by the AAMI/ESH/ISO. While resting HR measured by the HeartGuide was similar to Welch Allyn measures, both systolic and diastolic BP were significantly lower ( P ≤0.001), with differences of 10.4 (11.1) and 3.2 (10.0) mmHg, respectively. Study 2 compared HeartGuide measures to Welch Allyn measures for BP, HR, steps and sleep during various body positions (supine, seated, standing), physiological stressors (cold pressor test, lower body submersion, exercise), and free-living. The HeartGuide significantly underestimated BP though provided accurate HR during most conditions. It also significantly underestimated steps, but reported sleep measures similar to those subjectively reported. Based on the significant differences between the HeartGuide and Welch Allyn, our data indicate the HeartGuide is not a suitable replacement for existing BP monitors.

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.

Sympathetic Neural Mechanisms in Hypertension: Recent Insights

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine published and unpublished data documenting the role of sympathetic neural factors in the pathogenesis of different hypertensive phenotypes. These phenotypes relate to attended or unattended blood pressure measurements, to nighttime blood pressure profile alterations, and to resistant, pseudoresistant, and refractory hypertension. Results of original clinical studies as well as of recent meta-analyses based on the behavior of different sympathetic biomarkers in various hypertensive forms will be also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies performed in the past decade have shown that office blood pressure measurements, including in recent years those characterizing unattended or attended blood pressure assessment, are associated with profound changes in the behavior of different sympathetic biomarkers. This is the case for the clinical hypertensive phenotypes characterized by alterations in the nocturnal blood pressure profile and by sleep duration abnormalities. This is also the case for the clinical conditions defined as resistant, refractory, and pseudoresistant hypertension. Data reviewed in the present paper highlight the relevance of sympathetic neural factors in the development and progression of different clinical hypertensive phenotypes. This suggests that a common hallmark of the majority of the essential hypertensive states detectable in current clinical practice is represented by the alteration in the sympathetic blood pressure control.

Conventional office blood pressure measurements and unattended automated office blood pressure compared with home self-measurement and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether automated office blood pressure (BP) (AOBP) measurement is a better method for measuring BP in the office than conventional techniques and an alternative to out-of-office BP measurements: home-self BP (HSBP) or ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of 74 patients and compared AOBP with the conventional technique using a mercury sphygmomanometer and with both out-to-office BP measurements: HSBP of 7 days (three measurements in the morning, afternoon, and night) and daytime ABPM. In addition, we compared BP values obtained using HSBP and ABPM to determine their level of agreement. We used ANOVA to compare means, Bland-Altman, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for concordance.

RESULTS

BP values obtained by the two office methods were similar: conventional 147.2/85.0 mmHg and AOBP 146.0/85.5 mmHg ( P > 0.05) with good agreement (ICC 0.85). The mean SBP differences between AOBP and HSBP ( P < 0.001) and between AOBP and ABPM ( P < 0.001) were 8.6/13.0 mmHg with limits of agreement of -21.2 to 38.5 and -18.4 to 44.3 mmHg, respectively. The average SBP values obtained by HSBP were 4.3 mmHg higher than those obtained by ABPM ( P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed good agreement and concordance between the two office methods as well between the two out-to-office methods, although there was a significant difference in the mean SBP between the HSBP and ABPM. Moreover, AOBP was not comparable to either HSBP or ABPM; therefore, the estimation of out-to-office BP using AOBP is not supported.

Blood pressure response to close or loose contact between physician and patient during attended office blood pressure measurement

PURPOSE

Compared to unattended office blood pressure (uOBP), attended office blood pressure (aOBP) is higher. It is not known, however, to what extent distance between physician and patient influences blood pressure (BP) values.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants were stable hypertensive patients, followed in the university hospital-based out-patient center. During a session, automated office BP was measured three times after a pre-set five-minute pause, using the Omron 907 device; both aOBP and uOBP were done, in a random order. Simultaneously, beat-to-beat BP measurement was performed using the Finapress device. During aOBP, some participants were in close contact with the physician while others were in loose contact where the doctor was sitting in the room about 2.5 m apart. One year later, the second session with the same protocol was organized, but the close and loose contact were interchanged. The data were analyzed using a paired t-test.

RESULTS

Complete data were collected in 32 patients, baseline uOBP was 122.8 ± 14.8/69.5 ± 11.7 mmHg. Systolic and diastolic aOBP with close contact was higher by 4.6 ± 6.9 and 1.9 ± 3.4 mmHg (p < 0.0007 and 0.0039, respectively), while aOBP with loose contact was not different from uOBP. Beat-to-beat BP increased during aOBP by 6.5 ± 8.5/3.3 ± 4.8 mmHg. The increase persisted during all the three aOBP measurements (p < 0.0001 for all systolic and diastolic BP values); the results were similar for close and loose contact. The peak increase during uOBP was of similar magnitude as during aOBP but it lasted shorter: it reached the significance level of p < 0.0001 only during the first uOBP measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to uOBP, aOBP values were higher with close, but not with loose contact between physician and patient. These differences were, however, not detected by beat-to-beat BP measurement.

Blood Pressure Assessment and Treatment in the Observation Unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and the management of hypertension. Given the paucity of literature regarding the role of the observation unit in the management of hypertension, we will provide our recommendations based on our experience working in an observation unit.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many patients have limited access to primary care, and hypertension diagnosis often relies on office-based measurements. We will describe situations where that is not necessary to make the diagnosis. We will discuss the current non-pharmacologic treatment guidelines, the education of which should be provided to patients both in the emergency department and observation units. We will provide the current recommendations on what anti-hypertension medications can be initiated in the emergency department and observation units. Hypertension is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA. The utility of an observation unit in the diagnosis and management of patients with hypertension is beneficial particularly for those with risk factors for atherosclerotic disease. An observation unit stay provides the opportunity to diagnosis hypertension, initiate lifestyle education and pharmacologic treatment if indicated, and help to arrange appropriate follow-up for ongoing management and treatment in individuals with limited access to care.

Sympathetic nervous system and hypertension: New evidences

Evidences collected in the past few years have strengthened the concept that the sympathetic nervous system plays a primary role in the development and progression of the hypertensive state, starting from the early stage, and in the hypertension-related cardiovascular diseases. Several pathophysiological mechanisms are involved. Among them the genetic background, the immune system in conjunction with sympathetic activation. The present review will briefly discuss the importance of the above mentioned mechanisms in the development of hypertension. The paper will also examine the sympathetic mechanisms underlying attended vs unattended blood pressure measurements as well as their role in resistant vs pseudo-resistant hypertension. Finally evidence from recent meta-analysis on the relevance of sympathetic nerve traffic activation in the pathogenesis of hypertension will be briefly discussed.

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.

Management of Blood Pressure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Not Receiving Dialysis: Synopsis of the 2021 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline

DESCRIPTION

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis is an update of the KDIGO 2012 guideline on the same topic and reflects new evidence on the risks and benefits of BP-lowering therapy among patients with CKD. It is intended to support shared decision making by health care professionals working with patients with CKD worldwide. This article is a synopsis of the full guideline.

METHODS

The KDIGO leadership commissioned 2 co-chairs to convene an international Work Group of researchers and clinicians. After a Controversies Conference in September 2017, the Work Group defined the scope of the evidence review, which was undertaken by an evidence review team between October 2017 and April 2020. Evidence reviews were done according to the Cochrane Handbook. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to guide the development of the recommendations and rate the strength and quality of the evidence. Practice points were included to provide guidance when evidence was insufficient to make a graded recommendation. The guideline was revised after public consultation between January and March 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The updated guideline comprises 11 recommendations and 20 practice points. This synopsis summarizes key recommendations pertinent to the diagnosis and management of high BP in adults with CKD, excluding those receiving kidney replacement therapy. In particular, the synopsis focuses on recommendations for standardized BP measurement and a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, because these recommendations differ from some other guidelines.

Sympathetic Neural Mechanisms Underlying Attended and Unattended Blood Pressure Measurement

[Figure: see text].

Blood pressure measurement: Should technique define targets?

Accurate assessment of blood pressure (BP) is the cornerstone of hypertension management. The objectives of this study were to quantify the effect of medical personnel presence during BP measurement by automated oscillometric BP (AOBP) and to compare resting office BP by AOBP to daytime average BP by 24‐h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). This study is a prospective randomized cross‐over trial, conducted in a referral population. Patients underwent measurements of casual and resting office BP by AOBP. Resting BP was measured as either unattended (patient alone in the room during resting and measurements) or as partially attended (nurse present in the room during measurements) immediately prior to and after 24‐h ABPM. The primary outcome was the effect of unattended 5‐min rest preceding AOBP assessment as the difference between casual and resting BP measured by the Omron HEM 907XL. Ninety patients consented and 78 completed the study. The mean difference between the casual and Omron unattended systolic BP was 7.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5, 9.5). There was no significant difference between partially attended and unattended resting office systolic BP. Resting office BP (attended and partially attended) underestimated daytime systolic BP load from 24‐h ABPM. The presence or absence of medical personnel does not impact casual office BP which is higher than resting office AOBP. The requirement for unattended rest may be dropped if logistically challenging. Casual and resting office BP readings by AOBP do not capture the complexity of information provided by the 24‐h ABPM.

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.

Office blood pressure measurement: A comprehensive review

The conventional auscultatory methods for measuring blood pressure have been used to screen, diagnose, and manage hypertension since long. However, these have been found to be prone to errors especially the white coat phenomena which cause falsely high blood pressure readings. The Mercury sphygmomanometer and the Aneroid variety are no longer recommended by WHO for varying reasons. The Oscillometric devices are now recommended with preference for the Automated Office Blood Pressure measurement device which was found to have readings nearest to the Awake Ambulatory Blood Pressure readings. The downside for this device is the cost barrier. The alternative is to use the simple oscillometric device, which is much cheaper, with the rest and isolation criteria of the SPRINT study. This too may be difficult due to space constraints and the post‐clinic blood measurement is a new concept worth further exploration.

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.

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.

The global burden of hypertension exceeds 1.4 billion people: should a systolic blood pressure target below 130 become the universal standard?

: In 2010, 1.4 billion people globally had hypertension, with 14% controlled to systolic blood pressure (SBP, mmHg) below 140, which contributes to 18 million cardiovascular deaths annually. Recent hypertension guidelines endorsed SBP targets below 130 or lower for all or some hypertensive patients to reduce cardiovascular events (CVEs) more than the prior SBP target less than 140. In 2016, the Australian Guideline strongly recommended target SBP below 120 for adults at very high risk for CVE or aged above 75 years. In 2017 and 2018, the Canadian Guideline recommended automated office SBP (AOSBP) below 120 in adults at high risk and aged above 75 years (grade B). In 2017, the US Guideline recommended SBP below 130 for all adults (moderate-to-high risk class I; lower-risk grade IIb). In 2018, the European Guideline recommended SBP below 140 for all adults, and, if tolerated, a SBP range of 120-129 for adults aged below 65 years and 130-139 for adults aged at least 65 years (class I). The guidelines were variably influenced by Systolic blood PRessure INTervention trial and meta-analyses indicating fewer CVE when mean in-trial SBP was below 130 versus above 130. Clinicians considering lower SBP targets should be aware that: AOSBP preceded by 5-min rest is approximately 10-15 mmHg lower than usual office SBP; hypertensive patients with office SBP consistently versus intermittently below 140 have fewer CVE; benefits of mean office SBP or AOSBP below 120 remain unproven and could increase adverse events. Clinicians worldwide will do well to control SBP to below 140 in most hypertensive patients on most visits, which should lead to mean in-clinic SBP of 120-129.

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.

Resistant hypertension-defining the scope of the problem

The updated scientific statement by the American Heart Association has defined resistant hypertension (HTN;RH) as uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mmHg, despite concurrent use of 3 anti-HTN drug classes comprising a calcium channel blocker, a blocker of renin-angiotensin system, and a thiazide diuretic, preferably chlorthalidone. Using the updated BP criteria, the prevalence of RH in the United States is found to be modestly increased by approximately 3-4% among treated population. Meta-analysis of observational studies have demonstrated that pseudo-RH from white coat HTN or medication nonadherence is as much common as the truly RH. Thus, screening for pseudo-resistance in the evaluation of all apparent RH is of utmost importance as diagnosis of white-coat HTN requires no treatment, while medication nonadherence would benefit from identifying and targeting barriers to adherence.

Blood Pressure Assessment in Adults in Clinical Practice and Clinic-Based Research: JACC Scientific Expert Panel

The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Restricted use of mercury devices, increased use of oscillometric devices, discrepancies between clinic and out-of-clinic BP, and concerns about measurement error with manual BP measurement techniques have resulted in uncertainty for clinicians and researchers. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health convened a working group of clinicians and researchers in October 2017 to review data on BP assessment among adults in clinical practice and clinic-based research. In this report, the authors review the topics discussed during a 2-day meeting including the current state of knowledge on BP assessment in clinical practice and clinic-based research, knowledge gaps pertaining to current BP assessment methods, research and clinical needs to improve BP assessment, and the strengths and limitations of using BP obtained in clinical practice for research and quality improvement activities.

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

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have examined the relevance of hypertension (HTN) screening in walk-in clinics. So far, no valid algorithm has been proposed on how to integrate HTN screening in this context. The aim of our study was to assess, in a walk-in clinic setting, the HTN screening strategy for performing an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement following an initially high office blood pressure (OBP) measurement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Included participants were adults with nonemergent medical conditions and an initial walk-in clinic OBP between systolic 140 and/or diastolic 90 mmHg and systolic 180 and/or diastolic 110 mmHg. AOBP was performed with patients unattended. The 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) was used as the diagnostic threshold.

RESULTS

Fifty participants were included in the study. The overall HTN prevalence as confirmed by the 24-h ABPM was 46% [95% confidence interval (CI): 32.19-59.81]. After an elevated OBP, AOBP over diagnostic thresholds occurred in 32 patients and were confirmed by ABPM in 20 participants, leading to a 62.5% positive predictive value (95% CI: 51.5-72.3%). Measurements under the AOBP diagnostic threshold occurred in 18 patients and were confirmed by ABPM in 15 participants, leading to a negative predictive value of 83.3% (95% CI: 62.3-93.8%).

CONCLUSION

In a walk-in clinic, an elevated OBP is a useful screening tool due its ability to recognize nearly one in two patients as actually hypertensive. Adding an AOBP makes it possible to specify what course of action to take. This ultimately results in better targeting of patients for an ABPM referral.

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.

Potential of Stratified Medicine for High Blood Pressure Management: A Modeling Study Using NHANES Survey Data

The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines lowered the thresholds for defining and treating hypertension. However, the SPRINT trial showed substantial heterogeneity in benefits and harms of intensive antihypertensive treatment depending on patients' characteristics. We aimed at illustrating the potential gains of personalizing intensive antihypertensive treatment. Using the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011 to 2014 (n=2067), and prediction models derived from the SPRINT trial, we computed expected benefits and harms of intensive antihypertensive treatment for individuals aged 50 or more. We compared 2 interventions: (1) intensive antihypertensive treatment for all individuals meeting the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association thresholds and (2) a stratified medicine strategy excluding from intensive treatment individuals with predicted unfavorable benefit-risk. Outcome measures were model-predicted 5-year risk of cardiovascular events or death (myocardial infarction, acute coronary, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, and cardiovascular-related death), and severe adverse events (hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, bradycardia, and acute kidney injury). Per 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, 40.1 million (39.2%) US individuals aged 50 or more should initiate or intensify antihypertensive treatment, thereby preventing cardiovascular events for 795 000 individuals and inducing severe adverse events for 848 000 over 5 years. A stratified treatment strategy could decrease the number of individuals treated by 21.2 million (52.9%) and reduce the number of individuals with severe adverse events by 38.3%, with 11.7% fewer individuals with cardiovascular events prevented. Personalizing antihypertensive treatment according to predicted benefits and harms could spare treatment for more than half individuals while reducing harms 3× more than benefits.

Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement and Cardiac Target Organ Damage, A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

The ESC-2018 guidelines suggest the use of Unattended automated office blood pressure (UAOBP) to avoid or at least reduce the white coat effect, even if do not support its use as preferred method.

AIM

To assess the pressure difference between UAOBP and Attended office blood pressure (AOBP) and to evaluate their correlations with target organ damage in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

UAOBP and AOBP were taken in a cohort of 48 outpatients. The pressure difference between the 2 methods and their correlation with anthropometric and cardiac parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

Unattended systolic and diastolic BP were lower than Attended systolic and diastolic BP (135 ± 17 mmHg vs 139 ± 21 mmHg and 79 ± 10 mmHg vs 82 ± 10 mmg). ΔDBP was significantly directly correlated with female sex (r = 0.347, p = 0.016) and it was lower in men compared to women (0.11 ± 8.9 mmHg vs 6.07 ± 7.42 mmHg, p = 0.016). Correlation coefficients for LVMi and RWT for attended and unattended BP were not statistically different (for LVMi r = 0.286 vs r = 0.381, p = 0.61, for RWT r = 0.413 vs r = 0.363, p = 0.78). The relationship between attended and unattended BP was described by the following equation: y = - 4.68 + 1.06*x; where Y is the attended systolic BP and X is the unattended systolic BP; in accordance with this equation, an unattended systolic BP of 140 mmHg corresponds to an attended systolic BP of 143.7 mmHg.

CONCLUSIONS

UAOBP provides significantly lower values than AOBP. The difference in BP values between the two methods is much lower than the one obtained in most clinical studies.

Comparison of blood pressure values-self-measured at home, measured at an unattended office, and measured at a conventional attended office

Self-measured blood pressure (BP) at home (HBP) has been commonly used in clinical practice. Although the unattended office BP (UBP), in which a patient is left alone before and during the measurement, has been investigated, the advantages of UBP over HBP or conventionally measured attended office BP obtained using automated devices (CBP) remain unclear. We performed a multicenter clinical study in Japan to compare the UBP, CBP, and HBP among 308 patients with hypertension at 3 clinics (women, 57.8%; mean age 71.8 years; under antihypertensive drug therapy, 96.4%). The patients measured HBP twice in the morning and twice in the evening for 5 days according to the Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines. Using the Omron HEM-907 cuff-oscillometric device, the UBP and CBP were measured in line with the protocol in the Systolic blood PRessure INtervention Trial (SPRINT) and in accordance with the guidelines, respectively. Correlation coefficients were ≤0.16 for the comparison of UBP versus morning and evening HBP for the systolic measurement, whereas they were approximately 0.5 (P < 0.001) for the diastolic measurement. The difference between UBP minus HBP was small on average but varied among individuals (mean ± SD for UBP minus morning HBP: 0.9 ± 17.8/-4.5 ± 10.5 mmHg; UBP minus evening HBP: 5.7 ± 17.8/-0.1 ± 11.3 mmHg). In contrast, the measurement values of CBP and UBP were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.72), but the difference between CBP minus UBP was 10.4 ± 12.0/4.2 ± 6.5 mmHg. Based on the low correlations and wide range of differences, UBP cannot be used as an alternative to HBP.

Measurement of Blood Pressure in Humans: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. This article provides an updated American Heart Association scientific statement on BP measurement in humans. In the office setting, many oscillometric devices have been validated that allow accurate BP measurement while reducing human errors associated with the auscultatory approach. Fully automated oscillometric devices capable of taking multiple readings even without an observer being present may provide a more accurate measurement of BP than auscultation. Studies have shown substantial differences in BP when measured outside versus in the office setting. Ambulatory BP monitoring is considered the reference standard for out-of-office BP assessment, with home BP monitoring being an alternative when ambulatory BP monitoring is not available or tolerated. Compared with their counterparts with sustained normotension (ie, nonhypertensive BP levels in and outside the office setting), it is unclear whether adults with white-coat hypertension (ie, hypertensive BP levels in the office but not outside the office) have increased cardiovascular disease risk, whereas those with masked hypertension (ie, hypertensive BP levels outside the office but not in the office) are at substantially increased risk. In addition, high nighttime BP on ambulatory BP monitoring is associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk. Both oscillometric and auscultatory methods are considered acceptable for measuring BP in children and adolescents. Regardless of the method used to measure BP, initial and ongoing training of technicians and healthcare providers and the use of validated and calibrated devices are critical for obtaining accurate BP measurements.

The new US and European guidelines in hypertension: A multi-dimensional analysis

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) compared the clinical outcomes between target systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels between 140 and 120 mmHg or lower. Both,the 2017 ACC/AHA and the 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines in hypertension are derived from the SPRINT trial and advise initiation and/or intensification of treatment at lower blood pressure thresholds. The ACC/AHA guidance supersedes the 2014 Eight Joint National Committee guideline (JNC-8) which advised initiation of treatment when the BP was 140/90 mmHg or higher; in adults 60 years or over, the target was 150/90 mmHg. Compared to JNC-8, the new guidelines lower the SBP target by 10 mmHg in patients under age of 60 years, and by 20 mmHg in the elderly. We performed a qualitative multi-dimensional analysis in order to answer two key questions: will the new guidelines deliver the stated benefits? and, will translation to the clinic be simple, risk-free, and affordable? A major investment by national healthcare administrations will be necessary for the initiation and support of this program but this decision can only be justified by a valid expectation of clinical benefit. At this time, a definitive answer is not available and a "wait and see" attitude appears appropriate and reasonable. In the interim, efforts are best directed to the immediate problem of untreated hypertension worldwide.

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.

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.

Low Diastolic Blood Pressure is Not Related to Risk of First Episode of Stroke in a High-Risk Population: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT

Background

Hypertension is the most prevalent and leading risk factor for stroke. SPRINT (The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) assessed the effects on cardiovascular event risk of intensive compared with standard systolic blood pressure reduction. In this secondary analysis of SPRINT data, we investigated how low on‐treatment diastolic blood pressure (DBP) influenced risk for stroke events.

Methods and Results

For this analysis, we used SPRINT_POP (Primary Outcome Paper) Research Materials from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center. Data for 8944 SPRINT participants were analyzed from the period after target blood pressure was achieved until the end of the trial. Overall, there were 110 stroke events, including 49 from the intensive‐treatment arm and 61 in the standard‐treatment group. In participants with DBP <70 mm Hg, stroke risk was higher than with DBP ≥70 mm Hg (hazard ratio, 1.467; 95% CI 1.009–2.133; P=0.0445). Univariable Cox proportional hazard risk analysis showed that in the whole group, age and cardiovascular and chronic renal diseases were stroke risk factors. These risk factors were related to lower DBP and higher pulse pressure, however, not to study arm. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that only age, history of cardiovascular disease, current smoking status and on‐treatment systolic blood pressure were significantly related to stroke risk.

Conclusions

Low on‐treatment DBP is not related to the risk for the first stroke, in contrast to older age, the history of cardiovascular disease, current smoking status, and on‐treatment systolic blood pressure.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Implementing Home Blood Pressure Monitoring into Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review data supporting the use of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and provide practical guidance to clinicians wishing to incorporate HBPM into their practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

HBPM more accurately reflects the risk of cardiovascular events than office blood pressure measurement. In addition, there is high-quality evidence that HBPM combined with clinical support improves blood pressure control. Therefore, HBPM is increasingly recommended by guidelines to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and evaluate the efficacy of blood pressure-lowering medications. Nevertheless, HBPM use remains low due to barriers from the patient, clinician, and healthcare system level. Understanding these barriers is crucial for developing strategies to effectively implement HBPM into routine clinical practice. HBPM is a valuable adjunct to office blood pressure measurement for diagnosing hypertension and guiding antihypertensive therapy. Following recommended best practices can facilitate the successful implementation of HBPM and impact how hypertension is managed in the primary care setting.

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.