-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Blood pressure response to close or loose contact between physician and patient during attended office blood pressure measurement
J. Seidlerová, J. Filipovský, V. Kordíková, J. Gelžinský, Š. Mareš, O. Mayer
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
od 2022
Taylor & Francis Open Access
od 2022-12-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 1998-04-20
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 1992
- MeSH
- ambulantní monitorování krevního tlaku metody MeSH
- automatizace MeSH
- hypertenze * diagnóza MeSH
- krevní tlak MeSH
- lékaři * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- měření krevního tlaku metody MeSH
- systolické šelesty * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
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.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22024162
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20221031100239.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 221017s2022 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1080/08037051.2022.2104694 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)35903890
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Seidlerová, Jitka $u Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic $u Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- 245 10
- $a Blood pressure response to close or loose contact between physician and patient during attended office blood pressure measurement / $c J. Seidlerová, J. Filipovský, V. Kordíková, J. Gelžinský, Š. Mareš, O. Mayer
- 520 9_
- $a 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.
- 650 _2
- $a automatizace $7 D001331
- 650 _2
- $a krevní tlak $7 D001794
- 650 _2
- $a měření krevního tlaku $x metody $7 D001795
- 650 _2
- $a ambulantní monitorování krevního tlaku $x metody $7 D018660
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a hypertenze $x diagnóza $7 D006973
- 650 12
- $a lékaři $7 D010820
- 650 12
- $a systolické šelesty $7 D054160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Filipovský, Jan $u Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic $u Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Kordíková, Veronika $u Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Gelžinský, Július $u Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic $u Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Mareš, Štěpán $u Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Mayer, Otto $u Internal Department II, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic $u Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000280233749
- 773 0_
- $w MED00000810 $t Blood pressure $x 1651-1999 $g Roč. 31, č. 1 (2022), s. 194-199
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35903890 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20221017 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20221031100237 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1854093 $s 1175452
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2022 $b 31 $c 1 $d 194-199 $e - $i 1651-1999 $m Blood pressure $n Blood Press $x MED00000810
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20221017