Key result
Office blood pressure shows poor agreement with ABPM for diagnosing hypertension in children with T1DM.
Why the study?
Does ambulatory blood pressure monitoring improve the diagnostic accuracy of hypertension compared to office blood pressure in children with type 1 diabetes?
Cross-Sectional (n=84)
Does ambulatory blood pressure monitoring improve the diagnostic accuracy of hypertension compared to office blood pressure in children with type 1 diabetes?
Effect estimate: Kappa 0.175 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.384)
Absolute Event Rate: 51% vs 29%
In children with type 1 diabetes, office blood pressure is a poor predictor of true hypertension, frequently missing masked hypertension and overdiagnosing white-coat hypertension compared to ambulatory monitoring.
Office BP may misclassify hypertension in pediatric T1DM; leaves open whether routine ABPM improves outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the office blood pressure (OBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in the assessment of hypertension (HTN) in children with diabetes mellitus type 1 (T1DM). METHODS: We analyzed OBP and ABPM measurements in 84 diabetic children (43 boys) obtained at a median age of 14.9 yr and 6.3 +/- 3.5 yr after diagnosis of T1DM. OBP and ABPM results were converted into standard deviation scores (SDS). In addition, we analyzed blood pressure loads and nighttime dipping. The comparison between OBP and ABPM was performed using kappa coefficient and receiver operator curve (ROC). RESULTS: HTN was diagnosed in 43/84 (51%) patients using OBP (>95th percentile), and in 24/84 (29%) patients using ABPM ( > or = 95th percentile during 24 h, day or night). Both methods were in agreement in 33 ABPM normotensive and 16 ABPM hypertensive patients (most had nighttime HTN); 32% patients had white-coat HTN and 9.5% patients had masked HTN. The kappa coefficient was 0.175 (95% CI from -0.034 to 0.384) suggesting poor agreement between OBP and ABPM. Diastolic OBP was a better predictor of ABPM HTN (ROC area under the curve (AUC) = 0.71 +/- 0.06) than systolic OBP (AUC = 0.58 +/- 0.07). The percentage of non-dippers ranged from 7 to 23% in ABPM normotensive patients, and 21-42% in ABPM hypertensive patients who also had significantly higher BP loads (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Children with T1DM often suffer from nocturnal, white coat- and masked HTN, which can not be assessed and predicted by the OBP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Šuláková et al. (2009) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (n=84). Office blood pressure (OBP) vs. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was evaluated on Diagnosis of hypertension (Kappa 0.175, 95% CI -0.034 to 0.384). Office blood pressure showed poor agreement with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for diagnosing hypertension in children with T1DM (kappa 0.175; 95% CI -0.034 to 0.384).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: