Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides greater prognostic significance in determining risk for hypertensive end-organ damage compared with office blood pressure measurements.
Does ambulatory blood pressure monitoring improve cardiovascular risk stratification and therapeutic decision-making compared to office blood pressure measurements in hypertensive patients?
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a valuable clinical tool with greater prognostic significance than office blood pressure measurements for stratifying cardiovascular risk and guiding therapy in hypertensive patients.
Noninvasive, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has evolved over the past 25 years from a novel research tool of limited clinical use into an important and useful modality for stratifying cardiovascular risk and guiding therapeutic decisions. Early clinical uses of ABPM were mostly focused on identifying patients with white-coat hypertension; however, accumulated evidence now points to greater prognostic significance in determining risk for hypertensive end-organ damage compared with office blood pressure measurements. Ambulatory measurement of blood pressure using automated devices has also demonstrated benefit in other indications, such as treatment resistance and borderline hypertension, and is recommended by the Joint National Committee for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure in a number of clinical scenarios. Medicare recently announced plans to begin reimbursement for ABPM, which will likely increase demand for ABPM services. Clinicians should become familiar with the role of this technology in the care of the hypertensive patient.
Ernst et al. (Sun,) conducted a review in Hypertension. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) vs. Office blood pressure measurements was evaluated. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides greater prognostic significance in determining risk for hypertensive end-organ damage compared with office blood pressure measurements.