Key result
Waiting room AOBPM improves hypertension diagnostic accuracy by ~11 percentage points over standard office measurement.
Why the study?
Automatic office blood pressure measurement in the waiting room could potentially improve hypertension diagnosis without requiring an isolated room.
Does automated office blood pressure measurement in a waiting room accurately diagnose and phenotype hypertension compared to unattended AOBPM and standard office measurements?
Cross-Sectional (n=548)
Yes
Does automated office blood pressure measurement in a waiting room accurately diagnose and phenotype hypertension compared to unattended AOBPM and standard office measurements?
Automated office blood pressure measurements taken in a waiting room provide diagnostic accuracy for hypertension equivalent to unattended measurements in an isolated room, and both are superior to standard office measurements.
Waiting room AOBPM may aid hypertension diagnosis comparably to isolated AOBPM; leaves open prospective validation before changing practice.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bacaicoa et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=548). Waiting room automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) vs. Standard office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) and unattended AOBPM was evaluated on Accurate hypertension diagnosis matching daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) (95% CI 69%-76%, p=<0.001). Waiting room AOBPM and unattended AOBPM accurately identified hypertension status in 73% and 75% of patients respectively, both performing significantly better than standard office blood pressure measurement (62%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: