Dataset Information

Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinic-based blood pressure (BP) is a closely-tracked metric of health care quality, but is prone to inaccuracy and measurement imprecision. Recent guidelines have advocated for automated office blood pressure (AOBP) devices to improve clinic-based BP assessments.

Methods

Patients from a single hypertension clinic underwent a 3-day evaluation that included a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), 2 manual clinic-based BP measurements (over 2 visits), and an unattended AOBP measurement (single visit). All measurements were compared to the average wake-time systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) from ABPM.

Results

Among 103 patients (mean age 57.3 ± 14.8 years, 51% women, 29% black) the average wake-time SBP was 131.3 ± 12.3 mm Hg and DBP was 78.3 ± 9.2 mm Hg. The average of 2 manual BPs was significantly higher than wake-time ABPM with mean differences of 5.5 mm Hg (P < 0.001) for SBP and 2.7 mm Hg (P = 0.002) for DBP. In contrast, the averages of the last 2 AOBP measurements did not significantly differ from ABPM with mean differences of 1.6 mm Hg (P = 0.21) for SBP and -0.5 mm Hg (P = 0.62) for DBP. The estimated prevalence of SBP ? 140 or DBP ? 90 mm Hg based on wake-time ABPM was 27.2% vs. 49.5% based on the average of 2 manual measurements (difference 22.3%; P < 0.001) and 31.1% based on the average of the last 2 AOBP measurements (difference 3.9%; P = 0.57).

Conclusions

A single visit, unattended AOBP more precisely estimated BP and the prevalence of stage 2 and uncontrolled hypertension than even the average of 2 manual clinic visits, supporting guideline recommendations to use AOBP for clinic-based BP measurements.

SUBMITTER: Juraschek SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6931893 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement.

Juraschek Stephen P SP Ishak Anthony A Mukamal Kenneth J KJ Cohen Marc L ML Beach Jennifer L JL

American journal of hypertension 20200101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Clinic-based blood pressure (BP) is a closely-tracked metric of health care quality, but is prone to inaccuracy and measurement imprecision. Recent guidelines have advocated for automated office blood pressure (AOBP) devices to improve clinic-based BP assessments.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients from a single hypertension clinic underwent a 3-day evaluation that included a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), 2 manual clinic-based BP measurements (over 2 visits), and a ...[more]

PMID: 31350541

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNovel smartwatch-based cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices are coming to market and receive FDA and CE labels. These devices are often insufficiently validated for clinical use. This study aims to investigate a recently CE-cleared smartwatch using cuffless BP measurement in a population with normotensive and hypertensive individuals scheduled for 24-h BP measurement.MethodsPatients that were scheduled for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were recruited and received an additional Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 2 smartwatch for simultaneous BP measurement on their opposite arm. After calibration, patients were asked to measure as much as possible in a 24-h period. Manual activation of the smartwatch is necessary to measure the BP. Accuracy was calculated using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and ROC curves. Bland-Altman method and Taffé methods were used for bias and precision assessment. BP variability was calculated using average real variability, standard deviation and coefficient of variation.ResultsForty patients were included. Bland-Altman and Taffé methods demonstrated a proportional bias, in which low systolic BPs are overestimated, and high BPs are underestimated. Diastolic BPs were all overestimated, with increasing bias toward lower BPs. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting systolic and/or diastolic hypertension were 83 and 41%, respectively. ROC curves demonstrate an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.78 for systolic hypertension and of 0.93 for diastolic hypertension. BP variability was systematically higher in the ABPM measurements compared to the smartwatch measurements.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that the BP measurements by the Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 2 show a systematic bias toward a calibration point, overestimating low BPs and underestimating high BPs, when investigated in both normotensive and hypertensive patients. Standards for traditional non-invasive sphygmomanometers are not met, but these standards are not fully applicable to cuffless devices, emphasizing the urgent need for new standards for cuffless devices. The smartwatch-based BP measurement is not yet ready for clinical usage. Future studies are needed to further validate wearable devices, and also to demonstrate new possibilities of non-invasive, high-frequency BP monitoring.

Project description:Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) is consistently superior to clinic blood pressure (CBP) as a predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk. A common perception is that ABP is usually lower than CBP. The relationship of the CBP minus ABP difference to age has not been examined in the United States.Between 2005 and 2012, 888 healthy, employed, middle-aged (mean±SD age, 45±10.4 years) individuals (59% female, 7.4% black, 12% Hispanic) with screening BP <160/105 mm?Hg and not taking antihypertensive medication completed 3 separate clinic BP assessments and a 24-hour ABP recording for the Masked Hypertension Study. The distributions of CBP, mean awake ABP (aABP), and the CBP-aABP difference in the full sample and by demographic characteristics were compared. Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing was used to model the relationship of the BP measures to age and body mass index. The prevalence of discrepancies in ABP- versus CBP-defined hypertension status-white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension-were also examined.Average systolic/diastolic aABP (123.0/77.4±10.3/7.4 mm?Hg) was significantly higher than the average of 9 CBP readings over 3 visits (116.0/75.4±11.6/7.7 mm?Hg). aABP exceeded CBP by >10 mm?Hg much more frequently than CBP exceeded aABP. The difference (aABP>CBP) was most pronounced in young adults and those with normal body mass index. The systolic difference progressively diminished, but did not disappear, at older ages and higher body mass indexes. The diastolic difference vanished around age 65 and reversed (CBP>aABP) for body mass index >32.5 kg/m2. Whereas 5.3% of participants were hypertensive by CBP, 19.2% were hypertensive by aABP; 15.7% of those with nonelevated CBP had masked hypertension.Contrary to a widely held belief, based primarily on cohort studies of patients with elevated CBP, ABP is not usually lower than CBP, at least not among healthy, employed individuals. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of otherwise healthy individuals with nonelevated CBP have masked hypertension. Demonstrated CBP-aABP gradients, if confirmed in representative samples (eg, NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey]), could provide guidance for primary care physicians as to when, for a given CBP, 24-hour ABP would be useful to identify or rule out masked hypertension.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Million Hearts initiative includes an ambitious ?80% blood pressure control goal in US adults with hypertension by 2022. We used the validated Blood Pressure Control Model to quantify changes in clinic-based hypertension management processes needed to attain ?80% blood pressure control. METHODS AND RESULTS:The Blood Pressure Control Model simulates patient blood pressures weekly using 3 key modifiable hypertension management processes: office visit frequency, clinician treatment intensification given uncontrolled blood pressure, and continued antihypertensive medication use (medication adherence rate). We compared blood pressure control rates (using the Seventh Joint National Committee on hypertension targets) achieved over 4 years between usual care and the best-observed values for management processes identified from the literature (1-week return visit interval, 20%-44% intensification rate, and 76% adherence rate). We determined the management process values needed to achieve ?80% blood pressure control in US adults. In adults with uncontrolled blood pressure, usual care achieved 45.6% control (95% uncertainty interval, 39.6%-52.5%) and literature-based best-observed values achieved 79.7% control (95% uncertainty interval, 79.3%-80.1%) over 4 years. Increasing treatment intensification rates to 62% of office visits with an uncontrolled blood pressure resulted in ?80% blood pressure control, even when the return visit interval and adherence remained at usual care values. Improving to best-observed values for all 3 management processes would achieve 78.1% blood pressure control in the overall US population with hypertension, approaching the ?80% Million Hearts 2022 goal. CONCLUSIONS:Achieving the Million Hearts blood pressure control goal by 2022 will require simultaneously increasing visit frequency, overcoming therapeutic inertia, and improving patient medication adherence. As the relative importance of each of these 3 processes will depend on local characteristics, simulation models like the Blood Pressure Control Model can help local healthcare systems tailor strategies to reach local and national benchmarks.

Dataset Information

Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets