Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring exhibits day-to-day variability, with differences greater than 4/3 mmHg poorly predicting target organ damage, necessitating standardized clinical protocols.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is more reproducible than clinic measurements, but requires strict protocols, patient education, and training to minimize variability and artefactual readings.
OBJECTIVE: To focus on the reliability of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and on its limitations in clinical practice, and to construct adequate strategies to improve ambulatory monitoring performance. METHODS: The literature was reviewed, and personal data were used. DISCUSSION: Since the beginning of non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, it appeared that some subjects had a high proportion of outlying readings that were unlikely to be accurate. Although ambulatory blood pressure is more reproducible than clinic blood pressure, large day-to-day differences have also been reported in reproducibility studies for average 24 h blood pressure. It has been shown that, for day-to-day 24 h blood pressure differences greater than 4/3 mmHg, ambulatory blood pressure is poorly predictive of the degree of target organ damage. The variability of average 24 h blood pressure may arise from several causes, including true biological variability, a lack of standardization of activities and measurement errors. Artefactual readings can easily occur if patients are not properly instructed. Although editing procedures can eliminate outliers, it is often impossible to identify inaccurate readings included within the patient's trend. To optimize ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, health-care providers should be instructed adequately on how to perform this technique. Appropriate patient selection, a proper application of instrumentation and the checking of its performance, careful instructions to patients, the immediate evaluation of the patient's diary and 24 h tracing after completion of the recording should improve the results of ambulatory monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: A checklist of criteria that should be used for optimizing ambulatory monitoring in clinical practice should be proposed by the Consensus Conference on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. To improve doctors' proficiency, strategies including educational protocols and training programmes should be implemented.
Paolo Palatini (Sat,) conducted a review in Blood pressure monitoring. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was evaluated. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring exhibits day-to-day variability, with differences greater than 4/3 mmHg poorly predicting target organ damage, necessitating standardized clinical protocols.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: