Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • 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

. 2022 ; 31 (1) : 194-199. [pub] -

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc22024162

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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...