Key result
The first three blood pressure readings systematically overestimated blood pressure compared to multiple office blood pressure monitoring, while the 4th reading better aligned with mOBPM results.
Why the study?
Measuring BP in children is challenging, and an ideal method free from issues like white-coat effect or high variability has not been identified.
Does multiple office blood pressure monitoring (mOBPM) or a 4th reading improve the accuracy of blood pressure assessment compared to standard initial readings in healthy children?
Observational (n=151)
Yes
Does multiple office blood pressure monitoring (mOBPM) or a 4th reading improve the accuracy of blood pressure assessment compared to standard initial readings in healthy children?
Absolute Event Rate: 92.4% vs 98.1%
p-value: p=<0.05
The first three office blood pressure readings systematically overestimate blood pressure in children, whereas the 4th reading or a complete multiple office blood pressure monitoring protocol provides a more reliable assessment.
May support fourth readings or mOBPM to limit overestimation in children; leaves open impact on outcomes.
The measurement (M) of blood pressure (BP) in children may be challenging, and the ideal approach, free of critical issues (such as the interference due to the white coat effect or to the high variability), has yet to be identified. Herein, we compare BP as measured with multiple office BP monitoring (mOBPM) with the standard approach as suggested by guidelines. A cohort of healthy children underwent two mOBPMs 1 year apart. Mean systolic and diastolic values obtained by mOBPM were compared with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th measurements (repeated measures ANOVA). mOBPMs with a coefficient of variation (CV) > 15% were excluded. The number of children with BP > 90th centile was determined based on (a) each of the initial three readings, (b) the mean of the 2nd and 3rd Ms, (c) the 4th M, (d) the mOBPM at baseline, and (e) 1 year apart. Out of 164 enrolled children, 13 (7.9%) were excluded because of a CV > 15%. The analysis on the remaining 151 children showed that the first three Ms provided a significantly higher BP than the mOBPM. The 4th M was the first one to be aligned with the results of the mOBPM. Based on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ms, a BP > 90th centile was observed in 29, 20, 21, and 16 children, respectively. The mean of the 2nd and 3rd Ms identified 12 children with high BP, while the mOBPM revealed elevated BP in only 6 children and this finding was confirmed only in 3 of them 1 year later. CONCLUSION: The first three readings systematically overestimate BP, while the 4th one better aligns with the mOBPM. If the 4th reading is abnormal, the complete mOBPM will likely offer a more reliable BP assessment. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Blood pressure measurement may be challanging and initial readings systematically overestimate real values. WHAT IS NEW: • The 4th blood pressure reading better aligns with the mean of 10 measurements. In daily clinical practice, if the 4th reading is abnormal, the complete mOBPM (www.mobpm.com) will likely offer a more reliable BP assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dato et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Healthy children (blood pressure measurement) (n=151). Multiple office blood pressure monitoring (mOBPM) vs. Standard blood pressure measurement (1st, 2nd, and 3rd readings) was evaluated on Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) (p=<0.05). The first three blood pressure readings systematically overestimated blood pressure compared to multiple office blood pressure monitoring, while the 4th reading better aligned with mOBPM results.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: