Key result
Pulse rate acquired by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring differed marginally from 24-h Holter-ECG heart rate by 0.55 bpm (95% CI: 0.37-0.73, P < 0.001) for the 24-h average.
Why the study?
Resting heart rate associates with cardiovascular outcomes, but the accuracy of pulse rate acquired by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring compared with Holter-ECG heart rate was unknown.
Does pulse rate acquired by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring accurately reflect heart rate from 24-h Holter-ECG in general cardiology outpatients?
Observational (n=1,500)
Does pulse rate acquired by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring accurately reflect heart rate from 24-h Holter-ECG in general cardiology outpatients?
Mean Difference: 0.55 (95% CI 0.37–0.73)
p-value: p=< 0.001
Pulse rate derived from 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is highly accurate compared to Holter-ECG heart rate in most patients, though differences are slightly higher in those with atrial fibrillation.
ABPM pulse rate approximates Holter HR within 1 bpm; hypothesis-generating for substitution in large cohorts before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: Resting heart rate (HR) associates with cardiovascular outcomes in the general population and in patients with hypertension and heart failure. The accuracy of pulse rate acquired by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM-PR) in comparison with Holter-ECG HR (Holter-HR) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed at investigating the accuracy of ABPM-PR when compared with Holter-HR. METHODS AND RESULTS: The current study included 1500 patients of a general cardiology outpatient unit undergoing simultaneous Holter and ABPM recordings. ABPM-PR differed marginally from Holter-HR by 0.55 bpm for 24-h average [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37-0.73, P < 0.001], 1.27 bpm for daytime (95% CI: -0.98-1.56, P < 0.001) and 0.63 bpm for night-time (95% CI: 0.40-0.86 bpm; P < 0.001). The absolute delta between 24-h Holter-HR and ABPM-PR was less than 5 and less than 10 bpm in 1363 (91%) and 1458 (97%) patients, respectively. 24-h ABPM-PR more commonly underestimated than overestimated (7 versus 2%) 24-h Holter-HR by at least 5 bpm. The mean difference between Holter-HR and ABPM-PR was higher (+1.9 bpm; 95% CI: 0.9-3.0; P < 0.001) in patients with than without atrial fibrillation. There was no significant difference between Holter-HR and ABPM-PR in patients without supraventricular or ventricular extrasystoles (both P ≥ 0.750). CONCLUSION: ABPM-PR did not differ clinically meaningful from Holter-HR recordings in most patients and might be useful for risk prediction in hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lauder et al. (2020) conducted an observational in General cardiology outpatient (n=1,500). 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring pulse rate (ABPM-PR) vs. 24-h Holter-ECG heart rate (Holter-HR) was evaluated on Difference in 24-h average heart rate (MD 0.55 bpm, 95% CI 0.37-0.73, p=< 0.001). Pulse rate acquired by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring differed marginally from 24-h Holter-ECG heart rate by 0.55 bpm (95% CI: 0.37-0.73, P < 0.001) for the 24-h average.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: