Key result
ABPM retained prognostic significance for cardiac events in untreated patients, whereas HBPM was associated with increased cardiovascular risk in treated patients.
Why the study?
Do ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) serve different prognostic purposes in untreated versus treated patients with hypertension?
Do ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) serve different prognostic purposes in untreated versus treated patients with hypertension?
ABPM is more prognostically valuable for initial diagnosis in untreated patients, whereas HBPM is superior for long-term monitoring and outcome prediction in treated hypertensive patients.
For the last 2 decades, hypertension guidelines have progressively moved beyond office blood pressure (BP) thresholds as the sole basis for diagnosis.1-3 Out-of-office BP assessment is now central to hypertension diagnosis, including detection of different hypertension phenotypes, and risk stratification. Yet a practical question has remained insufficiently resolved: if both ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM) are recommended, are they truly interchangeable, or do they serve different purposes across the clinical course of hypertension?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nardoianni et al. (2026) conducted an editorial in Hypertension (n=4,935). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) vs. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) was evaluated on Cardiovascular events and stroke. ABPM retained prognostic significance for cardiac events in untreated patients, whereas HBPM was associated with increased cardiovascular risk in treated patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: