Why the study?
Although office blood pressure remains the gold standard, alternative central or out-of-office measurement methods are gaining popularity as better predictors of cardiovascular events.
Do out-of-office and central blood pressure measurements predict cardiovascular events and mortality better than traditional office blood pressure measurements?
Do out-of-office and central blood pressure measurements predict cardiovascular events and mortality better than traditional office blood pressure measurements?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring may offer superior prognostic value for cardiovascular events and mortality compared to traditional office measurements.
Hypertension is a potent risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. High blood pressure (BP) correlates closely with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Although the gold standard remains office BP (auscultatory or automated), other methods (central or out-of-office) are gaining popularity as better predictors of CV events. In this review, we investigated the prognostic value of each method of BP measurement and explored their advantages and pitfalls. Unattended automated office BP is a novel technique of BP measurement with promising data. Ambulatory BP monitoring, and to a lesser extent, home BP measurements, seem to predict cardiovascular events and mortality outcomes better, while at the same time, they can help distinguish hypertensive phenotypes. Data on the association of central BP levels with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes, are conflicting. Future extensive cross-sectional and longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate head-to-head the corresponding levels and results of each method of BP measurement, as well as to highlight disparities in their prognostic utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bakogiannis et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: