Accuracy of abbreviated protocols for unattended automated office blood pressure measurements, a retrospective study

Agreement between non-invasive and invasive arterial blood pressure during surgery in the prone position: an error grid analysis

PURPOSE

Prone position has recently gained renewed importance as a treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome and spine and brain surgeries. Our study aimed to perform an error grid analysis to examine the clinical discrepancies between arterial blood pressure (ABP) and non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) in the prone position and to investigate the risk factors influencing these differences.

METHODS

Error grid analysis was performed retrospectively on 1389 pairs of 100 consecutive prone positioning cases. This analysis classifies the difference between the two methods into five clinically relevant zones, from "no risk" to "dangerous risk". Additionally, multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the risk zones of mean blood pressure (MBP), as classified by error grid analysis and the covariate of interest.

RESULTS

Error grid analysis showed that the proportions of measurement pairs in risk zones A-E for systolic blood pressure were 96.8%, 3.2%, 0.1%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. In contrast, the MBP proportions were 74.0%, 25.1%, 0.9%, 0.1%, and 0%. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis revealed that the position of arms (next to the head) was a significant factor (adjusted odds ratio: 4.35, 95% CI: 2.38-8.33, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Error grid analysis revealed a clinically unacceptable discrepancy between ABP and NIBP for MBP during prone positioning surgery. The position of the arms next to the head was associated with increased clinical discrepancy between the two MBP measurement methods.

Characteristics of the Basel Postpartum Hypertension Cohort (Basel-PPHT Cohort): An Interim Analysis

Postpartum hypertension (PPHT) is hypertension that persists or develops after delivery and is a frequent cause of readmission, affecting 10% of pregnancies. This interim analysis aims to describe the cohort and to determine the feasibility and acceptance of a home-based telemonitoring management strategy (HBTMS) in PPHT patients. Enrollment at the University Hospital Basel began during the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Maternity-ward patients were screened for preexisting hypertension, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and de novo PPHT. In this pragmatic non-randomized prospective trial, the participants chose the HBTMS or standard of care (SOC), which consisted of outpatient hypertension clinic appointments. The HBTMS was a smartphone application or a programmed spreadsheet to report blood pressure (BP), followed by telephone consultations. Three months postpartum, the participants underwent a 24 h BP measurement and a blood, biomarker, and urine analysis. A total of 311 participants were enrolled between 06/20 and 08/23. The mean age was 34 (±5.3) years. The current pregnancy history demonstrated the following (≥1 diagnosis possible): 10% had preexisting hypertension, 27.3% gestational hypertension, 53% preeclampsia (PE), 0.3% eclampsia, 6% HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets), and 18.3% de novo PPHT. A family history of cardiovascular disease and PE was reported in 49.5% and 7.5%, respectively. In total, 23.3% were high-risk for PE. A total of 68.5% delivered via c-section, the mean hospitalization was 6.3 days (±3.9), and newborn intrauterine growth restriction occurred in 21%. A total of 99% of the participants chose the HBTMS. This analysis demonstrated that the HBTMS was accepted. This is vital in the immediate postpartum period and pertinent when the exposure of hospital visits should be avoided.

Cost-accuracy and patient experience assessment of blood pressure monitoring methods to diagnose hypertension: A comparative effectiveness study

Objectives

Studies of the diagnosis of hypertension have emphasized long-term cost-effectiveness analysis, but the patient experience and costs of blood pressure monitoring methods at the diagnosis stage remain unclear. We studied four diagnostic methods: a new 1 h-automated office blood pressure (BP) monitoring, office BP measurement, home BP monitoring, and awake-ambulatory BP monitoring.

Methods

We carried out a comparative effectiveness study of four methods of diagnosing hypertension in 500 participants with a clinical suspicion of hypertension from three primary healthcare (PHC) centers in Barcelona city (Spain). We evaluated the time required and the intrinsic and extrinsic costs of the four methods. The cost-accuracy ratio was calculated and differences between methods were assessed using ANOVA and Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test. Patient experience data were transformed using Rasch analysis and re-scaled from 0 to 10.

Results

Office BP measurement was the most expensive method (€156.82, 95% CI: 156.18–157.46) and 1 h-automated BP measurement the cheapest (€85.91, 95% CI: 85.59–86.23). 1 h-automated BP measurement had the best cost-accuracy ratio (€ 1.19) and office BP measurement the worst (€ 2.34). Home BP monitoring (8.01, 95% CI: 7.70–8.22), and 1 h-automated BP measurement (7.99, 95% CI: 7.80–8.18) had the greatest patient approval: 66.94% of participants would recommend 1 h-automated BP measurement as the first or second option.

Conclusion

The relationship between the cost-accuracy ratio and the patient experience suggests physicians could use the new 1 h-automated BP measurement as the first option and awake-ambulatory BP monitoring in complicated cases and cease diagnosing hypertension using office BP measurement.