Diagnostic accuracy of manual office blood pressure measurement in ambulatory hypertensive patients in Korea

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.

Screening for Hypertension in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and can be modified through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements in adults, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for effectiveness of screening; accuracy studies for screening and confirmatory measurements (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard); RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies and observational studies for harms of screening and confirmation.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; meta-analyses and qualitative syntheses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality; cardiovascular events; quality of life; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values; harms of screening.

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies (N = 215 534) were identified in this systematic review. One cluster RCT (n = 140 642) of a multicomponent intervention including hypertension screening reported fewer annual cardiovascular-related hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference, 3.02 per 1000 people; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n = 11 309) of initial office-based blood pressure screening showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (n = 57 128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of 8 office-based confirmation studies (n = 53 183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66). Meta-analysis of 4 home-based confirmation studies (n = 1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). Thirteen studies (n = 5150) suggested that screening was associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress; evidence on absenteeism was mixed. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement was associated with temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.

Comparison of multiple blood pressure frequency methods with optimum blood pressure measurement among Iranian individuals

Background:

Proper blood pressure (BP) measurement frequency method is less evaluated to optimize hypertension (HTN) status among different nations due to cultural patience variations. The aim of this study was to compare the first (BP₁), second (BP₂), and the mean of first and second (BP_1,2) and all the three (BP_1,2,3) with the second and third BP measurements in Iranian individuals.

Materials and Methods:

This cross-sectional study was done on 2264 individuals aged 18 years or more living in Isfahan city, Iran. Their BPs were assessed from right arms by the standard tools and methods after 5 min of rest in a quiet room by a trained staff. The mean second and third readings were considered as reference, and the other aforementioned variables were compared with it.

Results:

The mean age of total population was 40.9 ± 16.1 years (males: 52%). Men had significant higher means of systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) with any measurement frequency methods than women (P < 0.001 and P = 0.009). Considerable clinical significant (≥5 mmHg) ranges were mostly observed in BP₁ compared with BP_2,3. SBP₂ and DBP₂ indices showed insignificant differences compared with reference mean. Moreover, abnormal BP levels (≥140/90 mmHg) were mostly observed in terms of BP₁ measurement with no remarkable variability in BP₂ reading in comparison to the reference.

Conclusion:

Our considerable data suggested that BP₂ could appropriately categorize BP status similar to BP_2,3 and it may be rational for physicians considering this mean and excluding the first BP measurement as a sole criterion for HTN assessment in Iranian adults. Multiple researches are necessary quantifying appropriate frequencies of BP reading.