Why the study?
Does ambulatory blood pressure measurement improve cardiovascular risk prediction compared to conventional office measurement?
Does ambulatory blood pressure measurement improve cardiovascular risk prediction compared to conventional office measurement?
Ambulatory blood pressure measurement provides better prediction of individual cardiovascular risk and insights into circadian variability compared to conventional office measurement.
May support ABPM for refined CV risk prediction; extends observational data but leaves open outcome trials.
Control of blood pressure still relies on conventional office or clinical blood pressure measurement using mercury sphygmomanometry. However, it has long been known that office measurement, even when repeated, does not fully reflect usual blood pressure. The additional use of ambulatory devices for prolonged periods of blood pressure measurement is now clinically feasible. Previous research has indicated that ambulatory blood pressure measurement is better than office measurement at predicting individual cardiovascular risk. Guidelines for clinical use of ambulatory blood pressure measurement and for quality control of devices are available. Ambulatory measurement has revealed characteristics of circadian rhythm and variability that are promising with regard both to improving our understanding of the aetiology of high blood pressure and to individual risk assessment. Some of the latest developments in research on ambulatory blood pressure measurement are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Uiterwaal et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: