The optimal use of automated office blood pressure measurement in clinical practice

This evidence‐based article endorses the use of automated office blood pressure (AOBP). AOBP is the most favorable office blood pressure (BP) measuring technique as it provides accurate readings with 3‐15 mm Hg lower values than the casual conventional office measurements with auscultatory or semi‐automated oscillometric devices and relates closely to awake ABP readings. The AOBP technique seems to be superior to conventional office BP in predicting hypertension‐mediated organ damage and appears to be equally reliable to awake ABP in the prediction of cardiovascular (CV) disease. AOBP readings should be obtained either unattended, with the patient alone in the examination room, or attended with the presence of personnel in the room but with no talking to the patient, although this recommendation is not frequently followed in routine clinical practice. To optimize office BP readings, the type of device, the rest period before AOBP measurements (preceding rest), and the time intervals between measurements were evaluated. As AOBP readings have the advantage of removing many confounding factors, the authors propose to perform measurements with a preceding rest in all patients at the initial visit; if AOBP readings remain <130 mm Hg in subsequent visits, measurements could be accepted, otherwise, if are higher, patients should be evaluated by out‐of‐office BP measurements.     

Comparison between unattended automated office blood pressure and conventional office blood pressure under the environment of health checkup among Japanese general population

Unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement has been endorsed as the preferred in‐office measurement modality in recent Canadian and American clinical practice guidelines. However, the difference between AOBP and conventional office blood pressure (CBP) under the environment of a health checkup remains unclear. We aimed to identify the clinical significance of AOBP as compared to CBP under the environment of a health checkup. There were 491 participants (333 females, mean age of 62.5 years) who were at least 20 years old, including 179 participants who were previously diagnosed with hypertension. Mean AOBPs were 131.8 ± 20.9/76.6 ± 11.7 mm Hg, and CBPs were 135.6 ± 21.6/77.3 ± 11.5 mm Hg. There was a difference of 3.9 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 0.8 mm Hg in diastolic BP between AOBP and CBP. In all participants, SBP and pulse pressure, as well as the white coat effect (WCE), increased with age. The cutoff value used was 140/90 mm Hg for CBP and 135/85 mm Hg for AOBP, and the prevalence of WCE and masked hypertension effect (MHE) was 12.4% and 14.1%, respectively. Even in a health checkup environment of the general population, there was a difference between the AOBP and CBP, and the WCE was observed more strongly in the elderly with a history of hypertension, suggesting that a combination of AOBP with CBP may be useful in detecting WCE and MHE in all clinical scenarios including health checkups, and help solve the “hypertension paradox” not only in Japan but in all over the world.     

Unobserved automated office BP is similar to other clinic BP measurements: A prospective randomized study

Results of the SPRINT study have been disputed, based on the assumption that unattended BP measurements do not correlate with usual BP measurements. In this study, the authors investigated the correlation of unattended SPRINT‐like measurements with other conventional measurements. All BP measurements were taken with the patient seated in a comfortable chair with the legs uncrossed and not speaking during the procedure. For the purpose of this study, sixty‐five patients, mostly male (93%), were recruited from our hypertension clinic and all were on antihypertensive medication (av 3.0 ± 1.1). Patients were at high cardiovascular risk with high rates of comorbidities, av age 68 ± 12 years, 49% with diabetes, 34% with mild CKD (CKD 1‐3, average eGFR 55.0 ± 13 mL/min/1.73 m²), and 20% with history of stable coronary artery disease. All BP measurements were similar with no statistically significant difference (one‐way ANOVA, P = 0.621). Compared to unattended SPRINT BP values (139.77 ± 19.22/75.42 ± 11.72 mm Hg), the clinic BP measurements were numerically slightly higher but with a NS P value (P = 0.163). Similarly, unattended BP measurements were similar to values taken by the clinic physician. In a smaller cohort of 11 patients, the authors compared unobserved vs observed SPRINT‐like BP measurements, and in 13 patients, the authors compared unobserved SPRINT‐like BP measurements to average home BP measurements (Table 3). There were no significant differences between any of the subgroups (one‐way ANOVA, P = 0.816 for systolic and P = 0.803 for diastolic). The authors conclude that unattended BP measurements taken (the SPRINT way) are similar to other conventional office blood pressure measurements.     

Antecedent rest may not be necessary for automated office blood pressure at lower treatment targets

In SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), use of the Omron 907XL blood pressure (BP) monitor set at 5 minutes of antecedent rest to record BP produced an automated office BP value 7/6 mm Hg lower than awake ambulatory BP at 27 months. The authors studied the impact on automated office BP of setting the Omron 907XL to 0 minutes instead of 5 minutes of rest in patients with readings in the lower normal BP range, similar to on‐treatment BP in the SPRINT intensive therapy group. Patients (n = 100) in cardiac rehabilitation were randomized to three BP readings at 1‐minute intervals using an Omron 907XL BP device set for 5 or 0 minutes of antecedent rest. Mean (±standard deviation) automated office BP (mm Hg) after 5 minutes of rest (120.2 ± 14.6/66.9 ± 8.6 mm Hg) was lower (P < .001/P < .01) than without rest (124.2 ± 16.4/67.9 ± 9.1 mm Hg). When target BP is in the lower normal range, automated office BP recorded without antecedent rest using an Omron 907XL device should be higher and closer to the awake ambulatory BP, compared with readings taken after 5 minutes of rest.     

Automated office blood pressure is in agreement with awake and mean 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure at the lower blood pressure range

Automated office blood pressure measurement eliminates the white coat effect and is associated with awake ambulatory blood pressure. This study examined whether automated office blood pressure values at lower limits were comparable to those of awake and mean 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure. A total of 552 patients were included in the study, involving 293 (53.1%) men and 259 (46.9%) women, with a mean age 55.0 ± 12.5, of whom 36% were treated for hypertension. Both systolic and diastolic automated office blood pressures exhibited lower values compared to awake ambulatory blood pressure among 254 individuals with systolic automated office blood pressure <130 mm Hg (119 ± 8 mm Hg vs 125 ± 11 mm Hg, P < .0001 and 75 ± 9 mm Hg vs 79 ± 9 mm Hg, P < .0001 for systolic and diastolic BPs, respectively). Furthermore, the comparison of systolic automated office blood pressure to the mean 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure levels also showed lower values (119 ± 8 vs 121 ± 10, P = .007), whereas the diastolic automated office blood pressure measurements were similar to 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure values. Our findings show that when automated office blood pressure readings express values <130/80 mm Hg in repeated office visits, further investigation should be performed only when masked hypertension is suspected; otherwise, higher automated office blood pressure values could be used for the diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension, especially in individuals with organ damage.     

Early morning home blood pressure control among treated patients with controlled office blood pressure

Elevated morning blood pressure (BP) has a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, so morning BP is of substantial clinical importance for the management of hypertension. This study aimed to evaluate early morning BP control and its determines among treated patients with controlled office BP. From May to October 2018, 600 treated patients with office BP < 140/90 mm Hg were recruited from hypertension clinics. Morning BP was measured at home for 7 days. Morning home systolic blood pressure (SBP) increased by an average of 11.5 mm Hg and that morning home diastolic blood pressure (DBP) increased by an average of 5.6 mm Hg compared with office BP. Morning home SBP, DBP, and their moving average were more likely to be lower among patients with a office SBP < 120 mm Hg than among patients with a office SBP ranging from 120 to 129 mm Hg and from 130 to 139 mm Hg (P < .001). A total of 45% of patients had early morning BP < 135/85 mm Hg. The following factors were significantly correlated with morning BP control: male sex, age of <65 years, absence of habitual snoring, no drinking, adequate physical activity, no habit of high salt intake, office BP < 120/80 mm Hg, and combination of a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and angiotensin receptor blocker or angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ARB/ACEI). Less than half of patients with controlled office BP had controlled morning BP and that positive changes may be related to an office BP < 120/80 mm Hg, combination of a CCB and ACEI/ARB and a series of lifestyle adjustments.     

Automated office blood pressure measurements obtained with and without preceding rest are associated with awake ambulatory blood pressure

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement, attended or unattended, eliminates the white coat effect (WCE) showing a strong association with awake ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). This study examined the difference in AOBP readings, with and without 5 minutes of rest prior to three readings recorded at 1‐min intervals. Cross‐sectional data from 100 randomized selected hypertensives, 61 men and 39 women, with a mean age of 52.2 ± 10.8 years, 82% treated, were analyzed. The mean systolic AOBP values without preceding rest were 127.0 ± 18.2 mm Hg, and the mean systolic AOBP values with 5 minutes of preceding rest were 125.7 ± 17.9 mm Hg (P = .05). A significant order effect was observed for the mean systolic BP values when AOBP without 5 minutes of preceding rest was performed as the first measurement (130.0 ± 17.7 vs 126.5 ± 16.2, P = .008). When we used a target systolic AOBP ≥ 130 mm Hg, awake ABP yielded lower readings, while at a target systolic AOBP value of < 130 mm Hg higher awake ABP values were obtained. Our findings indicate that systolic AOBP can be initially checked without any preceding rest and if readings are normal can be accepted. Otherwise, when AOBP is ≥ 130 mm Hg, measurements should be rechecked with 5 minutes of rest.     

Comparison of exercise blood pressure measured by technician and an automated system

We evaluated the automated system Blood Pressure Measuring System (BPMS) developed by NASA on 277 adult males who elected to have a treadmill test as part of their annual physical. The BPMS uses acoustic transduction with a computer-assisted ECG gating to detect nonsynchronous noise. The BPMS readings were compared to pressures simultaneously measured by trained technicians. For all stages of work, BPMS readings were higher for systolic and lower for diastolic than technician readings. At peak stages of work, BPMS systolic pressures were about 20 mmHg higher than technician readings. Within each 3-min workstage, BPMS readings were found to be more inconsistent than technician readings. The standard errors of measurement for BPMS were from two to three times higher than technician values. These data showed automated blood pressure readings were significantly different than technician values and subject to more random fluctuations. These findings demonstrate the need to view exercise blood pressure measured by automated systems with caution.     

Discrepancies in the diagnosis of hypertension in adolescents according to available office and home high blood pressure criteria

This study aimed at comparing the prevalence of abnormal blood pressure (BP) phenotypes among 241 adolescents referred for hypertension (15.4 ± 1.4 years, 62% males, 40% obese) according to mostly used or available criteria for hypertension [AAP or ESH criteria for high office BP (OBP); Arsakeion or Goiânia schools’ criteria for high home BP monitoring (HBPM)]. High OBP prevalence was greater when defined by AAP compared with ESH criteria (43.5% vs. 24.5%; p < .001), while high HBPM prevalence was similar between Arsakeion and Goiânia criteria (33.5% and 37.5%; p = .34). Fifty‐five percent of the sample fulfilled at least one criterion for high BP, but only 31% of this subsample accomplished all four criteria. Regardless of the HBPM criteria, AAP thresholds were associated with lower prevalence of normotension and masked hypertension and greater prevalence of white‐coat and sustained hypertension than ESH thresholds. These findings support the need to standardize the definition of hypertension among adolescents.     

Office blood pressure measurement in the 21st century

Measurement of blood pressure (BP) using the auscultatory method must follow specific rules and conditions to be reliable. Nonetheless, these requirements are often not followed in clinical practice, resulting in inaccurate BP readings. Simply replacing manual sphygmomanometers with an oscillometric device may still produce readings that are associated with a white coat effect. These limitations can be overcome by using an oscillometric sphygmomanometer that automatically records multiple readings with the patient resting quietly and alone, called automated office (AO)BP. AOBP produces office readings with a reduced white coat effect, which are also similar to the awake ambulatory BP. There is also evidence that AOBP is a better predictor of target organ damage than attended office BP. Furthermore, clinical outcome data support AOBP as having both a similar diagnostic threshold as awake ambulatory BP and a lower treatment target. Using AOBP in clinical practice simplifies recording office BP by not requiring an additional period of rest before activation of the device and by not having staff present during the actual measurements. Recent studies have reported that automatic BP measurements taken by staff in research studies with close adherence to guidelines using AOBP devices may produce similar readings to AOBP. Further research is needed to determine the best method for recording BP at systolic targets < 130 mm Hg and the relationship of office BP to ambulatory BP and home BP.     

Comparison of awake ambulatory blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using linear regression analysis in untreated patients in routine clinical practice

The recent American hypertension guidelines recommended a threshold of 130/80 mmHg to define hypertension on the basis of office, home or ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Despite recognizing the potential advantages of automated office (AO)BP, the recommendations only considered conventional office BP, without providing supporting evidence and without taking into account the well documented difference between office BP recorded in research studies versus routine clinical practice, the latter being about 10/7 mmHg higher. Accordingly, we examined the relationship between AOBP and awake ambulatory BP, which the guidelines considered to be a better predictor of future cardiovascular risk than office BP. AOBP readings and 24‐hour ambulatory BP recordings were obtained in 514 untreated patients referred for ambulatory BP monitoring in routine clinical practice. The relationship between mean AOBP and mean awake ambulatory BP was examined using linear regression analysis with and without adjustment for age and sex. Special attention was given to the thresholds of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg, the latter value being the recognized threshold for defining hypertension using awake ambulatory BP, home BP and AOBP in other guidelines. The mean adjusted AOBP of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg corresponded to mean awake ambulatory BP values of 132.1/81.5 and 134.4/84.6 mmHg, respectively. These findings support the use of AOBP as the method of choice for determining office BP in routine clinical practice, regardless of which of the two thresholds are used for diagnosing hypertension, with an AOBP of 135/85 mmHg being somewhat closer to the corresponding value for awake ambulatory BP.     

Office blood pressure threshold of 130/80 mmHg better predicts uncontrolled out‐of‐office blood pressure in apparent treatment‐resistant hypertension

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of office blood pressure (BP) threshold of 140/90 and 130/80 mmHg for correctly identifying uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP in apparent treatment‐resistant hypertension (aTRH). We analyzed 468 subjects from a prospectively enrolled cohort of patients with resistant hypertension in South Korea (clinicaltrials.gov: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03540992","term_id":"NCT03540992"}}NCT03540992). Resistant hypertension was defined as office BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg with three different classes of antihypertensive medications including thiazide‐type/like diuretics, or treated hypertension with four or more different classes of antihypertensive medications. We conducted different types of BP measurements including office BP, automated office BP (AOBP), home BP, and ambulatory BP. We defined uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP as daytime BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg and/or home BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg. Among subjects with office BP < 140/90 mmHg and subjects with office BP < 130/80 mmHg, 66% and 55% had uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP, respectively. The prevalence of controlled and masked uncontrolled hypertension was lower, and the prevalence of white‐coat and sustained uncontrolled hypertension was higher, with a threshold of 130/80 mmHg than of 140/90 mmHg, for both office BP and AOBP. The office BP threshold of 130/80 mmHg was better able to diagnose uncontrolled out‐of‐office BP than 140/90 mmHg, and the net reclassification improvement (NRI) was 0.255. The AOBP threshold of 130/80 mmHg also revealed better diagnostic accuracy than 140/90 mmHg, with NRI of 0.543. The office BP threshold of 130/80 mmHg showed better than 140/90 mmHg in terms of the correspondence to out‐of‐office BP in subjects with aTRH.     

诊室噪声对血压测量值的影响

目的探讨诊室噪声对诊室血压测量值的影响。方法本研究为横断面研究,连续选取2015年1月至2016年6月于河南省人民医院心内科门诊就诊的、能提供近30 d内家庭自测血压数据、且符合入组标准的869例,按照就诊时诊室噪声是否符合《中华人民共和国国家标准声环境质量标准》(昼间≤55 dB)分为2组,比较诊室内血压值与家庭自测血压值的差异(|△SBP|),并采用有序多分类logistic回归分析相关影响因素。结果诊室噪声超标组(>55 dB)诊室收缩压及|△SBP|均明显高于诊室内噪声达标组(≤55 dB)[(144.04±21.58)mmHg比(140.06±18.11)mmHg,P=0.003;(13.44±14.67)mmHg比(9.52±12.19)mmHg,P<0.001],在校正了年龄、性别、体质指数、高血压病史、糖尿病病史、吸烟史、饮酒史后,logistic回归分析提示诊室噪声达标与|△SBP|相关(OR=0.648,95%CI:0.494~0.850)。结论诊室内噪声是否达标影响诊室内收缩压测量值与家庭自测收缩压值间的差异。     

Nocturnal hypertension in primary care patients with high office blood pressure: A regional study of the MAPAGE project

Nocturnal hypertension (NH) is an independent cardiovascular risk factor. We aimed to describe the frequency of NH among primary care hypertensive patients and to analyze NH determinants. This observational, cross‐sectional, multicenter study enrolled the patients of 23 general practitioners in Burgundy region, France. We included the first patient of the day with office blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg, whatever the reason for consultation. All included patients had 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Nocturnal hypertension was considered nighttime mean blood pressure ≥ 120/70 mm Hg, as per current guidelines. Medical, sociodemographic, and deprivation data were collected. Nocturnal hypertensive and non‐hypertensive patients were compared. The determinants of NH were identified using logistic regression models. From July 2015 to November 2018, 447 patients were analyzed. Mean office blood pressure was 158.6/91.5 mm Hg, and 255 patients (57.0%) were taking at least one antihypertensive drug. Among the 409 (91.5%) valid ABPM, 316 (77.3%) showed NH. In multivariate analyses, male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29‐3.75), first office diastolic blood pressure >100 mm Hg (OR = 5.71, 95% CI 1.53‐21.40), and current smoking (OR = 5.91, 95% CI 2.11‐16.56) were independent predictors of NH. Obesity was associated with a reduced risk of NH (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25‐0.75). No association was found between deprivation status or sociodemographic factors and NH. To conclude, NH was identified in more than three out of four patients with high office blood pressure. Male smokers with high diastolic blood pressure were most affected by NH. ABPM may improve hypertension management in these patients.     

Comparison of EMT blood pressure measurements with an automated blood pressure monitor: on scene, during transport, and in the emergency department

Auscultation or palpation of blood pressure in critically ill patients by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) can be difficult, if not impossible, because of ambient noise, motion artifact, limited access to patients, or weak pulses. Automated blood pressure monitors (ABPMs) have been designed to overcome these problems during field emergencies and patient transport. Our study compared blood pressure measurements taken by EMTs with measurements provided by a Lifestat ABPM. Measurements in emergency patients on scene, during transport, in the emergency department (ED), and in a controlled environment were compared. Measurements in the various sites were obtained from 57 patients, and provision was made for two measurements at each site. Comparison of on-scene systolic blood pressures yielded a mean absolute systolic difference of 10.46 +/- 1.42 mm Hg and a mean absolute diastolic difference of 9.33 +/- 1.32 mm Hg. During transport systolic pressures showed a mean absolute difference of 11.50 +/- 1.72 mm Hg, and diastolic pressures showed a mean absolute difference of 7.59 +/- 1.16 mm Hg. Mean absolute differences in the ED were 11.23 +/- 1.49 mm Hg systolic and 8.37 +/- 1.25 mm Hg diastolic. Ninety comparison measurements in a controlled environment yielded a mean absolute systolic difference of 8.74 +/- 0.87 mm Hg and a mean absolute diastolic difference of 7.97 +/- 0.72 mm Hg. Comparison of mean diastolic pressure differences between EMT and ABPM measurements in various settings revealed some small, but statistically significant, discrepancies that were not considered clinically relevant.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Headache: Prevalence and relationship with office or ambulatory blood pressure in a general population sample (the Vobarno Study)

The association of headache and arterial hypertension is still controversial, although headache is usually considered a symptom of hypertension. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of headache in a general population sample and the relationship with arterial hypertension, as diagnosed by office measurements and ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure (BP). Patients and methods. In the randomized sample of the Vobarno population, 301 subjects (126 males, 175 females, age range 35-50 years) underwent a structured standardized headache questionnaire, office and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. Results. Prevalence of lifetime headache and of migraine was greater in females than in males. Office and 24-h BP values did not differ between subjects without headache and subjects with headache. No differences in headache prevalence (58% vs 55%), migraine prevalence (32% vs 28%) and use of analgesic drugs in the presence of headache (82% vs 78%) were observed between hypertensive patients (93.5% newly diagnosed, 6.5% treated) and normotensive subjects. Conclusions. In a general population sample, hypertension (diagnosed by office and/or 24-h BP) is not associated with headache.     

Comparison among research,home, and office blood pressure measurements for pregnant women: The TMM BirThree Cohort Study

Blood pressure (BP) measurements of pregnant women have been collected in offices and at home for previous research. However, it remains uncertain whether there is difference between research BP, defined as BP measured for the purpose of epidemiological research and BP measured at home or in an office. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare research BP with home and unstandardized office BP. Research, home, and office BP were measured among pregnant women who participated in the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project Birth and Three‐Generation Cohort Study (TMM BirThree Cohort Study). Research BP was measured twice at our research center while the participant was seated and after resting for 1‐2 minutes. Research, home, and office BP were compared and agreement among the values was assessed. Differences among research, home, and office BP values and possible factors affecting differences were analyzed. Among 656 pregnant women, the mean (± standard deviations) research systolic (S), diastolic (D) BP, home SBP, home DBP office SBP, and office DBP were 103.8 ± 8.5, 61.8 ± 7.3, 104.4 ± 9.2, 61.2 ± 6.8, 110.5 ± 10.8, and 63.8 ± 8.7mmHg, respectively. Research SBP value was lower than home value (P = .0072; difference between mean research and home BP: −0.61 ± 7.8 mmHg). Research SBP and DBP values were lower than office values (P < .0001 for both SBP and DBP; means ± standard deviations of differences between research and office BP: 6.7 ± 10.1 and 2.0 ± 8.5 mmHg for SBP and DBP, respectively). In conclusion, when research BP is measured under conditions controlled, research BP can give close values to home BP for pregnant women.