Waiting room AOBPM correctly stratified hypertension status in 73% of participants, comparable to unattended AOBPM in an isolated room (75%), and both outperformed standard office measurement (62%).
Cross-Sectional (n=548)
Does waiting room AOBPM accurately diagnose and phenotype hypertension compared to unattended AOBPM, standard office BP, and daytime ambulatory BP monitoring in patients with or suspected of having hypertension?
Waiting room AOBPM is a valid alternative to unattended AOBPM in an isolated room for diagnosing hypertension, and both are superior to standard office BP measurements.
Absolute Event Rate: 73% vs 75%
Background Automatic office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) in the waiting room could improve the performance of diagnosing hypertension without requiring an isolated room to carry out exploration. Methods In a cross‐sectional study, we compared the performance to diagnose and phenotyping hypertension by 3 methods of blood pressure measurements, standard office blood pressure, unattended AOBPM in an isolated room or in an office waiting room AOBPM, compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement (daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) from a 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference. The cutoff values for hypertension and validation for waiting room or isolated room AOBPM were performed by receiver operating characteristic curves and Bland–Altman plots compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Results Out of the 548 participants recruited, 349 (64%) had hypertension, while 199 (36%) were being studied for a diagnosis of hypertension. Waiting room AOBPM and unattended AOBPM stratified hypertension status in a comparable way (n=398; 73% 95% CI, 69%–76%; and n=417; 75% [95% CI, 72%–79% participants, respectively), and both methods stratified better hypertension status than standard office blood pressure measurement did (n=338; 62% 95% CI, 57%–65%). Overall, the diagnostic accuracy for white coat syndrome was better for waiting room AOBPM, while for masked hypertension it was by unattended AOBPM (80% 95% CI, 77%–83% versus 87% 95% CI, 83%–89% and 88% 95% CI, 85%–90%] versus 73% 95% CI, 69%–76%, respectively). Conclusions To assess hypertension status, waiting room AOBPM is equivalent to unattended AOBPM in an isolated room and both better than standard office blood pressure measurement. The detection of hypertension phenotypes differs depending on the site of the measurement, waiting room or isolated room. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; unique identifier: NCT06198855.
Bacaicoa et al. (Tue,) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=548). Waiting room automatic office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) vs. Unattended AOBPM in an isolated room and standard office blood pressure measurement was evaluated on Stratification of hypertension status compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Waiting room AOBPM correctly stratified hypertension status in 73% of participants, comparable to unattended AOBPM in an isolated room (75%), and both outperformed standard office measurement (62%).