Key result
Unattended automated office BP averages ~10 mm Hg lower systolic than attended measurements but varies widely.
Why the study?
The long-term relationship between unattended automated office blood pressure and attended office blood pressure measurements in treated hypertensive patients is not known.
Does unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) reliably correlate with attended auscultatory blood pressure (AuscOBP) over long-term follow-up in treated hypertensive patients?
Observational (n=112)
Yes
Does unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) reliably correlate with attended auscultatory blood pressure (AuscOBP) over long-term follow-up in treated hypertensive patients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Unattended automated office blood pressure exhibits high intra-individual variability compared to auscultatory measurements and cannot reliably replace ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for identifying hypertension control.
AIMS: Unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) has attracted more attention since SPRINT trial had been published. However, its long-term relationship to attended office blood pressure (AuscOBP) is not known. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in four Czech academic hypertension centers. All subjects attended four clinical visits three months apart. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; AuscOBP was measured three times with auscultatory method by the physician. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed within one week from the second clinical visit. RESULTS: Data on 112 subjects aged 65.6 ± 10.8 years with mean AuscOBP 128.2 ± 12.2/78.5 ± 10.3 mm Hg are reported. Across the four clinical visits, the uAutoOBP was by 10.1/3.7 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP and the mean difference was similar during all four visits (P≥.061). Both uAutoOBP and AuscOBP had similar intra-individual variability during study follow-up as demonstrated by similar intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, for systolic ICC = 0.50, for diastolic ICC = 0.72). However, the intra-individual variability of the systolic AuscOBP and uAutoOBP difference was high as demonstrated by low ICCs for absolute (ICC = 0.17 [95%CI, 0.09 - 0.25]) and low κ coefficients for categorized differences (κ ≤ 0.16). The main determinant of AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was AuscOBP level. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: Although mean AuscOBP-uAutoOBP differences were relatively similar across the four clinical visits, intra-individual variability of this difference was high. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM. Therefore, uAutoOBP cannot be used as a replacement for ABPM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seidlerová et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Hypertension (n=112). Unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) vs. Attended office blood pressure (AuscOBP) was evaluated on Intra-individual variability of the absolute systolic AuscOBP and uAutoOBP difference (ICC 0.17, 95% CI 0.09-0.25). Unattended automated office blood pressure was 10.1/3.7 mm Hg lower than attended measurements, with high intra-individual variability in the systolic difference (ICC 0.17; 95% CI 0.09-0.25).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: