Key result
Multiple Office Blood Pressure Monitoring identified abnormal blood pressure in 3.97% of children, compared to 7.95% using the mean of the 2nd and 3rd readings, reducing systematic overestimation.
Why the study?
Obtaining reliable blood pressure measurements in children is challenging, and neither office blood pressure measurement nor 24-hour ambulatory monitoring fully resolves this problem.
Does multiple Office Blood Pressure Monitoring (mOBPM) provide a more reliable assessment of blood pressure compared to standard guideline-recommended measurements in healthy children?
Cohort (n=164)
No
Does multiple Office Blood Pressure Monitoring (mOBPM) provide a more reliable assessment of blood pressure compared to standard guideline-recommended measurements in healthy children?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.97% vs 7.95%
In children, the first three office blood pressure readings systematically overestimate blood pressure, suggesting that a 4th reading or multiple office BP monitoring provides a more reliable assessment to avoid overdiagnosing hypertension.
Introduction - Obtaining reliable blood pressure (BP) values in children may be challenging. Neither office blood pressure measurement (OBPM), as recommended by current guidelines, nor 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) fully addresses these issues. Since 2005, the Centre for Haemolytic Uremic Syndrome in Milan (Italy) has routinely employed multiple Office Blood Pressure Monitoring (mOBPM). Objective - BP as measured with mOBPM was compared with the standard approach suggested by guidelines. Materials and methods - A cohort of healthy children underwent two mOBPM assessments one year apart. Mean systolic and diastolic BP values obtained by mOBPM were compared with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th measurements (repeated-measures ANOVA). mOBPM recordings with a coefficient of variation (CV) >15% were excluded. The number of children with BP >90th percentile was determined by considering: a) each of the first three readings, b) the mean of the 2nd and 3rd measurements, c) the 4th measurement, d) the mOBPM at baseline and e) one year apart. Results - 13 children out of the 164 enrolled were excluded due to a CV >15% in either systolic or diastolic BP values. In the remaining 151 children, the first three measurements were significantly higher than the mOBPM values, whereas the 4th measurement was the first that did not significantly differ from mOBPM. Based on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th readings, a BP >90th percentile was observed in 29, 20, 21 and 16 children, respectively. The mean of the 2nd and 3rd readings identified 12 children with elevated BP, while the mOBPM revealed abnormal BP in only 6 children, of whom only 3 had confirmed values >90th percentile one year later. Conclusions - The first three measurements systematically overestimate BP, while the 4th one better aligns with the mOBPM. If the 4th reading is abnormal, a complete mOBPM will likely provide a more reliable assessment of BP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dato et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Healthy children (blood pressure screening) (n=164). Multiple Office Blood Pressure Monitoring (mOBPM) vs. Standard office blood pressure measurement (mean of 2nd and 3rd readings) was evaluated on Blood pressure >90th percentile. Multiple Office Blood Pressure Monitoring identified abnormal blood pressure in 3.97% of children, compared to 7.95% using the mean of the 2nd and 3rd readings, reducing systematic overestimation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: