-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Comparison of three office blood pressure measurement techniques and their effect on hypertension prevalence in the general population
P. Wohlfahrt, R. Cífková, A. Krajčoviechová, P. Šulc, J. Bruthans, A. Linhart, J. Filipovský, O. Mayer, J. Widimský
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
Grantová podpora
NV15-27109A
MZ0
CEP - Centrální evidence projektů
- MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- hypertenze diagnóza epidemiologie patofyziologie MeSH
- krevní tlak fyziologie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- měření krevního tlaku metody MeSH
- prevalence MeSH
- sfygmomanometry MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
OBJECTIVES: There is an ongoing controversy about the magnitude of the difference between unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) and conventional office blood pressure (BP). The aim of our study was to compare unattended AOBP with both auscultatory BP and oscillometric attended AOBP in an epidemiological setting. METHODS: In 2588 participants of the Czech post-MoNItoring of CArdiovascular Disease study (a randomly selected 1% representative population sample aged 25-64 years, mean age 48 ± 11 years, 47.5% males), BP was measured using an AOBP device unattended, auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer and an oscillometric attended AOBP device. RESULTS: On average, auscultatory BP was 10.6/5.6 mmHg higher than unattended AOBP. Similarly, oscillometric attended AOBP was 9.9/3.4 mmHg higher than unattended AOBP, while the mean difference between attended oscillometric AOBP and auscultatory BP was 0.8/2.1 mmHg. Unattended systolic AOBP of 127 mmHg corresponded to SBP of 140 mmHg measured by a conventional sphygmomanometer. The prevalence of hypertension varied depending on the measurement technique and ranged from 31.5 to 40.1%. Reasonable agreement in hypertension diagnosis was observed with unattended AOBP cut-off at least 130/85 mmHg when compared with both auscultatory (McNemar P = 0.07, kappa 0.819) and attended oscillometric AOBP (McNemar P = 0.46, kappa 0.852) thresholds of at least 140/90 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Unattended automated office SBP is on average 10 mmHg lower than the office auscultatory or attended AOBP values. In epidemiological settings, a threshold of unattended AOBP at least 130/85 mmHg should make comparison of hypertension prevalence possible with studies using auscultatory techniques and cut-off values of 140/90 mmHg.
Department of Medicine 2 Charles University Prague 1st Faculty of Medicine
Department of Medicine 2 Faculty of Medicine Charles University Pilsen
Department of Medicine 3 Charles University Prague 1st Faculty of Medicine Prague Czech Republic
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21012752
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210714141348.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210420s2020 xxk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002322 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)31834128
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxk
- 100 1_
- $a Wohlfahrt, Peter $u Center for Cardiovascular Prevention, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine and Thomayer Hospital
- 245 10
- $a Comparison of three office blood pressure measurement techniques and their effect on hypertension prevalence in the general population / $c P. Wohlfahrt, R. Cífková, A. Krajčoviechová, P. Šulc, J. Bruthans, A. Linhart, J. Filipovský, O. Mayer, J. Widimský
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVES: There is an ongoing controversy about the magnitude of the difference between unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) and conventional office blood pressure (BP). The aim of our study was to compare unattended AOBP with both auscultatory BP and oscillometric attended AOBP in an epidemiological setting. METHODS: In 2588 participants of the Czech post-MoNItoring of CArdiovascular Disease study (a randomly selected 1% representative population sample aged 25-64 years, mean age 48 ± 11 years, 47.5% males), BP was measured using an AOBP device unattended, auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer and an oscillometric attended AOBP device. RESULTS: On average, auscultatory BP was 10.6/5.6 mmHg higher than unattended AOBP. Similarly, oscillometric attended AOBP was 9.9/3.4 mmHg higher than unattended AOBP, while the mean difference between attended oscillometric AOBP and auscultatory BP was 0.8/2.1 mmHg. Unattended systolic AOBP of 127 mmHg corresponded to SBP of 140 mmHg measured by a conventional sphygmomanometer. The prevalence of hypertension varied depending on the measurement technique and ranged from 31.5 to 40.1%. Reasonable agreement in hypertension diagnosis was observed with unattended AOBP cut-off at least 130/85 mmHg when compared with both auscultatory (McNemar P = 0.07, kappa 0.819) and attended oscillometric AOBP (McNemar P = 0.46, kappa 0.852) thresholds of at least 140/90 mmHg. CONCLUSION: Unattended automated office SBP is on average 10 mmHg lower than the office auscultatory or attended AOBP values. In epidemiological settings, a threshold of unattended AOBP at least 130/85 mmHg should make comparison of hypertension prevalence possible with studies using auscultatory techniques and cut-off values of 140/90 mmHg.
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a krevní tlak $x fyziologie $7 D001794
- 650 _2
- $a měření krevního tlaku $x metody $7 D001795
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a hypertenze $x diagnóza $x epidemiologie $x patofyziologie $7 D006973
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a prevalence $7 D015995
- 650 _2
- $a sfygmomanometry $7 D019722
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Cífková, Renata $u Center for Cardiovascular Prevention, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine and Thomayer Hospital ; Department of Medicine II, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine
- 700 1_
- $a Krajčoviechová, Alena $u Center for Cardiovascular Prevention, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine and Thomayer Hospital
- 700 1_
- $a Šulc, Pavel $u Center for Cardiovascular Prevention, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine and Thomayer Hospital
- 700 1_
- $a Bruthans, Jan $u Center for Cardiovascular Prevention, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine and Thomayer Hospital
- 700 1_
- $a Linhart, Aleš $u Department of Medicine II, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine
- 700 1_
- $a Filipovský, Jan $u Department of Medicine II, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Pilsen
- 700 1_
- $a Mayer, Otto $u Department of Medicine II, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Pilsen
- 700 1_
- $a Widimský, Jiří $u Department of Medicine III, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00002723 $t Journal of hypertension $x 1473-5598 $g Roč. 38, č. 4 (2020), s. 656-662
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31834128 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210420 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210714141346 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1651004 $s 1133131
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 38 $c 4 $d 656-662 $e - $i 1473-5598 $m Journal of hypertension $n J Hypertens $x MED00002723
- GRA __
- $a NV15-27109A $p MZ0
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210420
