Attended vs unattended systolic blood pressure measurement: A randomized comparison in patients with cardiovascular disease.
blood pressure measurement
cardiovascular disease
hypertension
Journal
Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)
ISSN: 1751-7176
Titre abrégé: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888554
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
received:
14
04
2020
revised:
27
07
2020
accepted:
29
07
2020
pubmed:
21
9
2020
medline:
29
5
2021
entrez:
20
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent clinical guidelines recommend lower blood pressure (BP) goals for most patients, and recent trends have favored use of automated unattended BP measurements in the office setting to minimize observer error and white-coat effects. Patients attending a routinely scheduled CVD clinic visit were prospectively randomized to BP measured using an attended, followed by an unattended method, or vice versa, after a controlled rest period. All study BP measurements were obtained in triplicate using the automated Omron HEM-907XL BP monitor, and averaged. The outcome was difference in SBP. Routinely measured clinic BP from the same visit was extracted from the medical record, and compared with attended and unattended BP. A total of 102 patients were randomized, and mean age was 63 years, 52% female and 75% Caucasian. Attended and unattended SBP was 125.4 ± 20.4 and 122.6 ± 21.0 mm Hg, mean ± SD, respectively. Routine clinic SBP was 130.6 ± 23.6 mm Hg. Attended SBP was 2.7 mm Hg higher than the unattended measurement (95% CI 1.3-4.1; P = .0002). Routine clinic SBP was 5.2 mm Hg higher than attended SBP (95% CI 2.4-8.0; P = .0003) and 8.0 mm Hg higher than unattended SBP (95% CI 5.4-10.5; P < .0001). Attended measurement of BP is significantly higher than unattended measurement and the difference is physiologically meaningful, even in a CVD cohort with generally well-controlled hypertension. Furthermore, routine clinic SBP substantially overestimates both attended and unattended automated SBP, with important implications for treatment decisions like dose and/or drug escalation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32951360
doi: 10.1111/jch.14037
pmc: PMC8029864
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1987-1992Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 1;179(3):351-362
pubmed: 30715088
BMJ. 2011 Feb 07;342:d286
pubmed: 21300709
Ann Fam Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;9(2):128-35
pubmed: 21403139
Blood Press Monit. 2009 Jun;14(3):108-11
pubmed: 19417634
J Hypertens. 2013 Jun;31(6):1131-5
pubmed: 23552126
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jan 29;73(3):317-335
pubmed: 30678763
Blood Press. 2016 Aug;25(4):228-34
pubmed: 26852625
Can J Cardiol. 2018 May;34(5):506-525
pubmed: 29731013
Lancet. 2014 May 31;383(9932):1899-911
pubmed: 24881994
J Hypertens. 2020 Aug;38(8):1407-1411
pubmed: 32251198
N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373(22):2103-16
pubmed: 26551272
Hypertension. 2018 May;71(5):848-857
pubmed: 29531173
Hypertension. 2019 Mar;73(3):736-742
pubmed: 30686088
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2020 Nov;22(11):1987-1992
pubmed: 32951360
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2017 Dec;19(12):1210-1213
pubmed: 28942618
Circulation. 2018 Oct 23;138(17):e426-e483
pubmed: 30354655
Int J Cardiol. 2019 Jan 1;274:305-310
pubmed: 29945805