Comparison of three office blood pressure measurement techniques and their effect on hypertension prevalence in the general population
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium print
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
31834128
DOI
10.1097/hjh.0000000000002322
PII: 00004872-202004000-00016
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- 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
Zobrazit více v PubMed
GBD 2017 Risk Factor Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018; 392:1923–1994.
Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. 2018 Practice Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology: ESH/ESC Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. J Hypertens 2018; 36:2284–2309.
Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 2018; 71:e13–e115.
Leung AA, Daskalopoulou SS, Dasgupta K, McBrien K, Butalia S, Zarnke KB, et al. Hypertension Canada's 2017 Guidelines for diagnosis, risk assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults. Can J Cardiol 2017; 33:557–576.
Antikainen RL, Moltchanov VA, Chukwuma C Sr, Kuulasmaa KA, Marques-Vidal PM, Sans S, et al. Trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension: the WHO MONICA Project. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2006; 13:13–29.
Padwal RS, Bienek A, McAlister FA, Campbell NR. Epidemiology of hypertension in Canada: an update. Can J Cardiol 2016; 32:687–694.
Cifkova R, Skodova Z, Bruthans J, Holub J, Adamkova V, Jozifova M, et al. Longitudinal trends in cardiovascular mortality and blood pressure levels, prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the Czech population from 1985 to 2007/2008. J Hypertens 2010; 28:2196–2203.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307–310.
Pappaccogli M, Di Monaco S, Perlo E, Burrello J, D’Ascenzo F, Veglio F, et al. Comparison of automated office blood pressure with office and out-off-office measurement techniques. Hypertension 2019; 73:481–490.
Andreadis EA, Geladari CV, Angelopoulos ET, Savva FS, Georgantoni AI, Papademetriou V. Attended and unattended automated office blood pressure measurements have better agreement with ambulatory monitoring than conventional office readings. J Am Heart Assoc 2018; 7:1–8.
Paini A, Bertacchini F, Stassaldi D, Aggiusti C, Maruelli G, Arnoldi C, et al. Unattended versus attended blood pressure measurement: mean values and determinants of the difference. Int J Cardiol 2019; 274:305–310.
Yano Y, Vongpatanasin W, Ayers C, Turer A, Chandra A, Carnethon MR, et al. Regional fat distribution and blood pressure level and variability: the Dallas Heart Study. Hypertension 2016; 68:576–583.
Wohlfahrt P, Cifkova R, Movsisyan N, Kunzova S, Lesovsky J, Homolka M, et al. Threshold for diagnosing hypertension by automated office blood pressure using random sample population data. J Hypertens 2016; 34:2180–2186.
Parati G, Stergiou G, O’Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens 2014; 32:1359–1366.
Mancia G, Sega R, Bravi C, De Vito G, Valagussa F, Cesana G, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure normality: results from the PAMELA study. J Hypertens 1995; 13:1377–1390.
Schettini C, Bianchi M, Nieto F, Sandoya E, Senra H. Ambulatory blood pressure: normality and comparison with other measurements. Hypertension Working Group. Hypertension 1999; 34:818–825.
Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Paterson JM, Dolovich L, Tu K. Thresholds for diagnosing hypertension based on automated office blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension 2015; 66:489–495.
Ostchega Y, Zhang G, Sorlie P, Hughes JP, Reed-Gillette DS, Nwankwo T, et al. Blood pressure randomized methodology study comparing automatic oscillometric and mercury sphygmomanometer devices: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–2010. Natl Health Stat Rep 2012; 59:1–15.
Mancia G, Bertinieri G, Grassi G, Parati G, Pomidossi G, Ferrari A, et al. Effects of blood-pressure measurement by the doctor on patient's blood pressure and heart rate. Lancet 1983; 2:695–698.
Filipovský J, Seidlerova J, Kratochvil Z, Karnosova P, Hronova M, Mayer O Jr. Automated compared to manual office blood pressure and to home blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Blood Press 2016; 25:228–234.
Kjeldsen SE, Lund-Johansen P, Nilsson PM, Mancia G. Unattended blood pressure measurements in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial: implications for entry and achieved blood pressure values compared with other trials. Hypertension 2016; 67:808–812.
