Differences between home blood pressure and strictly measured office blood pressure and their determinants in Japanese men.
General population
Home blood pressure
Office blood pressure
Journal
Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension
ISSN: 1348-4214
Titre abrégé: Hypertens Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9307690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
02
02
2020
accepted:
01
07
2020
pubmed:
31
8
2020
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
1
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Conventional office blood pressure (OBP) and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements are often inconsistent. The purpose of this research was (1) to test whether strictly measured OBP values with sufficient rest time before measurement (st-OBP) is comparable to HBP at the population level and (2) to ascertain whether there are particular determinants for the difference between HBP and st-OBP at the individual level. Data from a population-based group of 1056 men aged 40-79 years were analyzed. After a five-min rest, st-OBP was measured twice. HBP was measured after a 2-min rest every morning for seven consecutive days. To determine factors related to ΔSBP (HBP minus st-OBP measurements), multiple linear regression analyses and analyses of covariance were performed. While st-OBP and HBP were comparable (136.5 vs. 137.2 mmHg) at the population level, ΔSBP varied with a standard deviation of 13.5 mmHg. Smoking was associated with a larger ΔSBP regardless of antihypertensive usage, and BMI was associated with a larger ΔSBP in participants using antihypertensive drugs. The adjusted mean ΔSBP in the highest BMI tertile category was 4.6 mmHg in participants taking antihypertensive drugs. st-OBP and HBP measurements were comparable at the population level, although the distribution of ΔSBP was considerably broad. Smokers and obese men taking antihypertensive drugs had higher HBP than st-OBP, indicating that their blood pressure levels are at risk of being underestimated. Therefore, this group would benefit from the addition of HBP measurements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32863384
doi: 10.1038/s41440-020-00533-w
pii: 10.1038/s41440-020-00533-w
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antihypertensive Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
80-87Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Kallioinen N, Hill A, Horswill MS, Ward HE, Watson MO. Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients’ resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review. J Hypertens. 2017;35:421–41.
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001197
Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S, Albus C, Brotons C, Catapano AL, et al. 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts) developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2315–81.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw106
Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE Jr, 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.
pubmed: 29133356
Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Cesana G, Corrao G, Grassi G, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Circulation. 2005;111:1777–83.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000160923.04524.5B
Bliziotis IA, Destounis A, Stergiou GS. Home versus ambulatory and office blood pressure in predicting target organ damage in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2012;30:1289–99.
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283531eaf
Stergiou GS, Siontis KC, Ioannidis JP. Home blood pressure as a cardiovascular outcome predictor: it’s time to take this method seriously. Hypertension. 2010;55:1301–3.
doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.150771
Ward AM, Takahashi O, Stevens R, Heneghan C. Home measurement of blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Hypertens. 2012;30:449–56.
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834e4aed
Satoh M, Maeda T, Hoshide S, Ohkubo T. Is antihypertensive treatment based on home blood pressure recommended rather than that based on office blood pressure in adults with essential hypertension? (meta-analysis). Hypertens Res. 2019;42:807–16.
doi: 10.1038/s41440-019-0221-y
Roush GC, Fagard RH, Salles GF, Pierdomenico SD, Reboldi G, Verdecchia P, et al. Prognostic impact from clinic, daytime, and night-time systolic blood pressure in nine cohorts of 13,844 patients with hypertension. J Hypertens. 2014;32:2332–40.
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000355
Asayama K, Ohkubo T. Unattended automated measurements: office and out-of-office blood pressures affected by medical staff and environment. Hypertension. 2019;74:1294–6.
doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13753
Verberk WJ, Kroon AA, Kessels AG, de Leeuw PW. Home blood pressure measurement: a systematic review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:743–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.058
Yarows SA, Qian K. Accuracy of aneroid sphygmomanometers in clinical usage: University of Michigan experience. Blood Press Monit. 2001;6:101–6.
doi: 10.1097/00126097-200104000-00006
Niiranen TJ, Jula AM, Kantola IM, Reunanen A. Comparison of agreement between clinic and home-measured blood pressure in the Finnish population: the Finn-HOME Study. J Hypertens. 2006;24:1549–55.
doi: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000239290.94764.81
Fagard RH, Van Den Broeke C, De Cort P. Prognostic significance of blood pressure measured in the office, at home and during ambulatory monitoring in older patients in general practice. J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19:801–7.
doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001903
Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Rakugi H, Miyakawa M, Mori H, Katsuya T, et al. Comparison of blood pressure values-self-measured at home, measured at an unattended office, and measured at a conventional attended office. Hypertens Res. 2019;42:1726–37.
doi: 10.1038/s41440-019-0287-6
Ueshima H, Kadowaki T, Hisamatsu T, Fujiyoshi A, Miura K, Ohkubo T, et al. Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 is related to risk of subclinical atherosclerosis but is not supported by Mendelian randomization analysis in a general Japanese population. Atherosclerosis. 2016;246:141–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2015.12.027
Satoh A, Arima H, Hozawa A, Ohkubo T, Hisamatsu T, Kadowaki S, et al. The association of home and accurately measured office blood pressure with coronary artery calcification among general Japanese men. J Hypertens. 2019;37:1676–81.
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002080
Shitara S, Fujiyoshi A, Hisamatsu T, Torii S, Suzuki S, Ito T, et al. Intracranial artery stenosis and its association with conventional risk factors in a general population of Japanese men. Stroke. 2019;50:2967–9.
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025964
Naschitz JE, Gaitini L, Loewenstein L, Keren D, Zuckerman E, Tamir A, et al. In-field validation of automatic blood pressure measuring devices. J Hum Hypertens. 2000;14:37–42.
doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1000937
Coleman A, Freeman P, Steel S, Shennan A. Validation of the Omron 705IT (HEM-759-E) oscillometric blood pressure monitoring device according to the British Hypertension Society protocol. Blood Press Monit. 2006;11:27–32.
doi: 10.1097/01.mbp.0000189788.05736.5f
Japanese Society of H. Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension (JSH 2004). Hypertens Res. 2006;29:S1–105.
doi: 10.1291/hypres.29.S1
Umemura S, Arima H, Arima S, Asayama K, Dohi Y, Hirooka Y, et al. The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2019). Hypertens Res. 2019;42:1235–481.
doi: 10.1038/s41440-019-0284-9
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
Hozawa A, Ohkubo T, Nagai K, Kikuya M, Matsubara M, Tsuji I, et al. Factors affecting the difference between screening and home blood pressure measurements: the Ohasama Study. J Hypertens. 2001;19:13–9.
doi: 10.1097/00004872-200101000-00002
Horikawa T, Obara T, Ohkubo T, Asayama K, Metoki H, Inoue R, et al. Difference between home and office blood pressures among treated hypertensive patients from the Japan Home versus Office Blood Pressure Measurement Evaluation (J-HOME) study. Hypertens Res. 2008;31:1115–23.
doi: 10.1291/hypres.31.1115
Grassi G, Seravalle G, Calhoun DA, Bolla G, Mancia G. Cigarette smoking and the adrenergic nervous system. Clin Exp Hypertens A. 1992;14:251–60.
pubmed: 1541039
Freestone S, Ramsay LE. Effect of coffee and cigarette smoking on the blood pressure of untreated and diuretic-treated hypertensive patients. Am J Med. 1982;73:348–53.
doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90725-2
Grassi G, Biffi A, Seravalle G, Trevano FQ, Dell’Oro R, Corrao G, et al. Sympathetic neural overdrive in the obese and overweight state. Hypertension. 2019;74:349–58.
doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.12885
Johnson KC, Whelton PK, Cushman WC, Cutler JA, Evans GW, Snyder JK, et al. Blood pressure measurement in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Hypertension. 2018;71:848–57.
doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10479