Key result
Remote blood pressure monitoring linked to ~1 mm Hg/month systolic reduction over 6 months.
Why the study?
Remote blood pressure monitoring programs are increasingly utilized to improve hypertension care, but rigorous analysis of program outcomes including clinical effectiveness and participant experience is needed to inform future initiatives.
Does a remote blood pressure monitoring program improve blood pressure control in primary care patients with uncontrolled hypertension?
Observational (n=150)
No
Does a remote blood pressure monitoring program improve blood pressure control in primary care patients with uncontrolled hypertension?
Effect estimate: Adjusted reduction 1.08 mm Hg/month (95% CI -1.24 to -0.91)
A primary care remote blood pressure monitoring program was associated with improved blood pressure control and high patient satisfaction, though sustained patient engagement and technology connectivity remain challenging.
Remote BP monitoring may aid systolic reduction in primary care; leaves open whether RCTs confirm benefits amid engagement challenges.
INTRODUCTION: Remote blood pressure monitoring (RBPM) programs are increasingly utilized to improve hypertension care. Rigorous analysis of program outcomes including clinical effectiveness and participant experience can inform future initiatives. METHODS: During year 1 of the COVID-19 pandemic, we implemented a RBPM program for patients who: (1) received primary care in a single academic medical network, (2) were part of an accountable care financial arrangement, and (3) had uncontrolled hypertension. Evaluation combined a 6-month prospective cohort observational study (assessing the program's association with hypertension control and remote blood pressure [RBP] reporting) with surveys (assessing patient and care team experience.)Results:A total of 150 patients (mean age 57 years, 65% male) enrolled across 10 clinics, of whom 121/150 contributed remote blood pressure data. Among the patients who contributed data, we observed an adjusted reduction in systolic blood pressure by 1.08 mm Hg/month (95% CI = -1.24 to -0.91) and diastolic blood pressure by 0.88 mm Hg/month (95% CI = -0.99 to -0.77) associated with our intervention. The number of patients contributing to RBPM data declined from 121 to 22 from inception to the end of the 6-month study. Among the 61 patient survey respondents (40% response rate), 80% reported high program satisfaction and likelihood to recommend. Survey respondents noted improvements in weight loss (14%), medication compliance (16%), diet (29%), and exercise (35%). Qualitative survey analysis identified themes of patient convenience and increased self-efficacy in blood pressure (BP) management. Quantitative and qualitative patient and care team survey analysis showed technology linkage challenges. CONCLUSION: Overall, our primary care RPBM program was associated with improved blood pressure control among participants and favorable patient and care team experience but experienced challenges of significant decline in blood pressure reporting over time. For future institutional RBPM implementations, we aim to retain the high quality of blood pressure management guidance that participants received while increasing technology connectivity and longitudinal reporting support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bakhshandeh et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Uncontrolled hypertension (n=150). Remote blood pressure monitoring (RBPM) program was evaluated on Reduction in systolic blood pressure (Adjusted reduction 1.08 mm Hg/month, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.91). A primary care remote blood pressure monitoring program was associated with an adjusted reduction in systolic blood pressure of 1.08 mm Hg/month (95% CI -1.24 to -0.91) over 6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: