Key result
Automated sequential blood pressure demonstrated a strong positive correlation with both office blood pressure (r=0.81 for systolic) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (r=0.74), yielding values closer to ambulatory readings.
Why the study?
Office blood pressure measurement has pitfalls such as white coat effect and masked hypertension, prompting evaluation of automated sequential blood pressure compared with office and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Does automated sequential blood pressure (ASqBP) correlate and agree with office blood pressure (OBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in patients attending a hypertension clinic?
Cross-Sectional (n=64)
No
Does automated sequential blood pressure (ASqBP) correlate and agree with office blood pressure (OBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in patients attending a hypertension clinic?
Unattended automated sequential blood pressure measurement correlates well with ambulatory monitoring and can help eliminate the white coat effect in hypertension clinics.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support ASqBP to mitigate white coat effect in clinics; extends correlation data but leaves open prospective outcome validation.
BACKGROUND: Office blood pressure (OBP) measurement is the most common method of blood pressure measurement. However, it is associated with several pitfalls as white coat effect and masked hypertension. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is usually used for diagnosis of hypertension and elimination of white coat effect. This study aimed to assess the correlation and degree of agreement of the automated sequential blood pressure (ASqBP) with OBP and ABPM. Patients presented to hypertension clinic were included. Each patient had his blood pressure recorded by three methods: OBP using a digital sphygmomanometer device, unattended ASqBP using sequential BP devices with recording of the readings over 30 min, and ABPM that was performed within 48 h of office visit using portable BP devices with BP recording over 24 h. RESULTS: We recruited 64 patients (age 50.0 ± 15.0 years and female gender 53.1%). We found a strong positive correlation between ASqBP and OBP readings (r 0.81 for SBP and 0.83 for DBP, p < 0.001). We also found a strong positive correlation between ASqBP and ABPM readings (r 0.74, p < 0.001). The ASqBP readings were lower than OBP (137.0 ± 16.8/86.4 ± 13.8 vs. 142.7 ± 15.5/88.5 ± 12.3) and close to ABPM readings (average 24 h, 134.0 ± 15.4/88.5 ± 12.3, and daytime, 135.8 ± 15.7/82.1 ± 13.7). For SBP readings, there was moderate agreement between ASqBP and AMBP (both average and daytime). For DBP readings, there was fair agreement between ASqBP and AMBP (both average and daytime). CONCLUSION: ASqBP measurement has good correlation with OBP and ABPM readings. Unattended automated office pressure has moderate degree of agreement with ABPM for the SBP& fair degree of agreement for the DBP. It can be used in the hypertension clinics to eliminate the problems of white coat effect and marked BP variability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahmoud et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=64). Automated sequential blood pressure (ASqBP) vs. Office blood pressure (OBP) and Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was evaluated on Correlation and degree of agreement of ASqBP with OBP and ABPM (r = 0.81 for SBP and r = 0.83 for DBP (ASqBP vs OBP), p=<0.001). Automated sequential blood pressure demonstrated a strong positive correlation with both office blood pressure (r=0.81 for systolic) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (r=0.74), yielding values closer to ambulatory readings.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: