Home blood pressure monitoring was as reliable as ambulatory monitoring in predicting target-organ damage, with home systolic BP significantly correlating with LVMI (r=0.35, P<0.01).
Cross-Sectional (n=68)
Does home blood pressure monitoring predict hypertension-induced target-organ damage as reliably as ambulatory or office blood pressure monitoring in untreated hypertensive patients?
Home blood pressure monitoring is as reliable as ambulatory monitoring and superior to office measurements in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage.
Effect estimate: r=0.35
p-value: p=<0.01
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess the value of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in comparison to office BP measurements and ambulatory monitoring in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage. METHODS: Sixty-eight untreated patients with hypertension with at least two routine prestudy office visits were included (mean age, 48.6 +/- 9.1 SD years; 50 men). Office BP was measured in two study visits, home BP was measured for 6 workdays, and ambulatory BP was monitored for 24 h. All BP measurements were obtained using validated electronic devices. Target-organ damage was assessed by measuring the echocardiographic left-ventricular mass index (LVMI), urinary albumin excretion rate (AER) in two overnight urine collections, and carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (PWV) (Complior device; Colson, Garges-les-Gonesse, Paris, France). RESULTS: The correlation coefficients of LVMI with office BP were 0.24/0.15 (systolic/diastolic), with home BP 0.35/0.21 (systolic, P < .01), and with 24-h ambulatory BP 0.23/0.19, awake 0.21/0.16, and asleep 0.28/0.26 (asleep, both P < .05). The correlation coefficients of AER with office BP were 0.24/0.31 (diastolic, P < .05), with home BP 0.28/0.26 (both P < .05), and with 24-h ambulatory BP 0.25/0.24, awake 0.24/0.25 (diastolic, P < .05), and asleep 0.26/0.18 (systolic, P < .05). There was a trend for negative correlations between PWV and diastolic BP measurements (not significant). In multiple-regression models assessing independent predictors of each of the three indices of target-organ damage, systolic home BP and age were the only independent predictors of increased LVMI that reached borderline statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that home BP is as reliable as ambulatory monitoring in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage, and is superior to carefully taken office measurements.
Stergiou et al. (Thu,) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=68). Home blood pressure monitoring vs. Office blood pressure and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was evaluated on Correlation with target-organ damage (LVMI, AER, PWV) (r=0.35, p=<0.01). Home blood pressure monitoring was as reliable as ambulatory monitoring in predicting target-organ damage, with home systolic BP significantly correlating with LVMI (r=0.35, P<0.01).