Dataset Information

Schedules for Self-monitoring Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Self-monitoring of blood pressure better predicts prognosis than clinic measurement, is popular with patients, and endorsed in hypertension guidelines. However, there is uncertainty over the optimal self-monitoring schedule. We therefore aimed to determine the optimum schedule to predict future cardiovascular events and determine "true" underlying blood pressure.

Methods

Six electronic databases were searched from November 2009 (updating a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] systematic review) to April 2017. Studies that compared aspects of self-monitoring schedules to either prognosis or reliability/reproducibility in hypertensive adults were included. Data on study and population characteristics, self-monitoring regime, and outcomes were extracted by 2 reviewers independently.

Results

From 5,164 unique articles identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included from the original NICE review, making a total of 37 studies. Increasing the number of days of measurement improved prognostic power: 72%-91% of the theoretical maximum predictive value (asymptotic maximum hazard ratio) was reached by 3 days and 86%-96% by 7 days. Increasing beyond 3 days of measurement did not result in better correlation with ambulatory monitoring. There was no convincing evidence that the timing or number of readings per day had an effect, or that ignoring the first day's measurement was necessary.

Conclusions

Home blood pressure should be measured for 3 days, increased to 7 only when mean blood pressure is close to a diagnostic or treatment threshold. Other aspects of a monitoring schedule can be flexible to facilitate patient uptake of and adherence with self-monitoring.

SUBMITTER: Hodgkinson JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6420684 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelf-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension.Methods and findingsMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies.ConclusionsSelf-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.

Project description:Abstract Aims High blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential solutions; however, little is known about their validity and utility. We aimed to systematically review the validity, features and clinical use of wearable cuffless BP devices. Methods and results We searched MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore and the Cochrane Database till December 2019 for studies that reported validating cuffless BP devices. We extracted information about study characteristics, device features, validation processes, and clinical applications. Devices were classified according to their functions and features. We defined devices with a mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) biases of <5 mmHg as valid as a consensus. Our definition of validity did not include assessment of device measurement precision, which is assessed by standard deviation of the mean difference—a critical component of ISO protocol validation criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to summarise the mean biases for SBP and DBP across studies. Of the 430 studies identified, 16 studies (15 devices, 974 participants) were selected. The majority of devices (81.3%) used photoplethysmography to estimate BP against a reference device; other technologies included tonometry, auscultation and electrocardiogram. In addition to BP and heart rate, some devices also measured night-time BP (n = 5), sleep monitoring (n = 3), oxygen saturation (n = 3), temperature (n = 2) and electrocardiogram (n = 3). Eight devices showed mean biases of <5 mmHg for SBP and DBP compared with a reference device and three devices were commercially available. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the wearable and reference devices for SBP (pooled mean difference = 3.42 mmHg, 95% CI: −2.17, 9.01, I2 95.4%) and DBP (pooled mean = 1.16 mmHg, 95% CI: −1.26, 3.58, I2 87.1%). Conclusion Several cuffless BP devices are currently available using different technologies, offering the potential for continuous BP monitoring. The variation in standards and validation protocols limited the comparability of findings across studies and the identification of the most accurate device. Challenges such as validation using standard protocols and in real-life settings must be overcome before they can be recommended for uptake into clinical practice. Graphical Abstract Graphical abstract Wearable BP device system.

Project description:ImportanceBlood pressure monitoring is critical to the timely diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. At-home self-monitoring techniques are highly effective in managing high blood pressure; however, evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of at-home self-monitoring compared with traditional monitoring in clinical settings remains unclear.ObjectiveTo identify and synthesize published research examining the cost-effectiveness of at-home blood pressure self-monitoring relative to monitoring in a clinical setting among patients with hypertension.Evidence reviewA systematic literature search of 5 databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL) followed by a backward citation search was conducted in September 2022. Full-text, peer-reviewed articles in English including patients with high blood pressure (systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg) at baseline were included. Data from studies comparing at-home self-monitoring with clinical-setting monitoring alternatives were extracted, and the outcomes of interest included incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios. Non-peer-reviewed studies or studies with pregnant women and children were excluded. To ensure accuracy and reliability, 2 authors independently evaluated all articles for eligibility and extracted relevant data from the selected articles.FindingsOf 1607 articles identified from 5 databases, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the US (6 [40%]) and in the UK (6 [40%]), and almost all studies (14 [90%]) used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. Nearly half the studies used quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1-mm Hg reduction in blood pressure as outcomes. Overall, at-home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) was found to be more cost-effective than monitoring in a clinical setting, particularly over a minimum 10-year time horizon. Among studies comparing HBPM alone vs 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter were found to be more cost-effective.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, at-home blood pressure self-monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous blood pressure measurements or combined with additional support or team-based care, demonstrated the potential to be cost-effective long-term compared with care in the physical clinical setting and could thus be prioritized for patients with hypertension from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.

Project description:BackgroundAutomated measurement of blood pressure (BP) in designated BP kiosks have in recent years been introduced in primary care. If kiosk blood pressure (BP) monitoring provides results equivalent to in-office BP or daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), follow-up of adult patients could be managed primarily by self-checks. We therefore designed a comparative trial and evaluated the diagnostic performance of kiosk- and office-based BP (nurse- versus physician-measured) compared with daytime ABPM.MethodsA trial of automated BP monitoring in three settings: a designated BP kiosk, by nurses and physicians in clinic, and by ABPM. The primary outcome was systolic and diastolic BP, with respective diagnostic thresholds of ≥135 mmHg and/or ≥ 85 mmHg for daytime ABPM and kiosk BP and ≥ 140 mmHg and/or ≥ 90 mmHg for office BP (nurse- and physician-measured).ResultsCompared with daytime ABPM, mean systolic kiosk BP was higher by 6.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-8.6) and diastolic by 7.9 mmHg (95% CI 6.2-9.6; p < 0.001). Mean systolic BP taken by nurses was similar to daytime ABPM values (+ 2.0 mmHg; 95% CI - 0.2-4.2; p = 0.071), but nurse-measured diastolic values were higher, by 7.2 mmHg (95% CI 5.9-9.6; p < 0.001). Mean systolic and diastolic physician-measured BPs were higher compared with daytime ABPM (systolic, by 7.6 mmHg [95% CI 4.5-10.2] and diastolic by 5.8 mmHg [95% CI 4.1-7.6]; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curves of BP monitoring across pairs of systolic/diastolic cut-off levels among the three settings, with daytime ABPM as reference, demonstrated overall similar diagnostic performance between kiosk and nurse-measured values and over the curve performance for physician-measured BP. Accuracy with nurse-measured BP was 69.2% (95% CI 60.0-77.4%), compared with 65.8% (95% CI 56.5-74.3%) for kiosk BP.ConclusionsIn this study kiosk BP monitoring was not comparable to daytime ABPM but could be an alternative to in-office BP monitoring by trained nurses. The diagnostic performance of kiosk and nurse-measured BP monitoring was similar and better than that of physician-measured BP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04488289) 27/07/2020.