Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

25 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Comparison among research, home, and office blood pressure measurements for pregnant women: The TMM BirThree Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: Blood pressure (BP) measurements of pregnant women have been collected in offices and at home for previous research. However, it remains uncertain whether there is difference between research BP, defined as BP measured for the purpose of epidemiological research and BP measured at home or in an office. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare research BP with home and unstandardized office BP. Research, home, and office BP were measured among pregnant women who participated in the Tohoku Medical Megabank Project Birth and Three-Generation Cohort Study (TMM BirThree Cohort Study). Research BP was measured twice at our research center while the participant was seated and after resting for 1-2 minutes. Research, home, and office BP were compared and agreement among the values was assessed. Differences among research, home, and office BP values and possible factors affecting differences were analyzed. Among 656 pregnant women, the mean (± standard deviations) research systolic (S), diastolic (D) BP, home SBP, home DBP office SBP, and office DBP were 103.8 ± 8.5, 61.8 ± 7.3, 104.4 ± 9.2, 61.2 ± 6.8, 110.5 ± 10.8, and 63.8 ± 8.7mmHg, respectively. Research SBP value was lower than home value (P = .0072; difference between mean research and home BP: -0.61 ± 7.8 mmHg). Research SBP and DBP values were lower than office values (P < .0001 for both SBP and DBP; means ± standard deviations of differences between research and office BP: 6.7 ± 10.1 and 2.0 ± 8.5 mmHg for SBP and DBP, respectively). In conclusion, when research BP is measured under conditions controlled, research BP can give close values to home BP for pregnant women.

SUBMITTER: Usuzaki T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8029783 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Comparison of Office Blood Pressure, Automated Unattended Office Blood Pressure, Home Blood Pressure, and 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10713445 | biostudies-literature

Comparison Between Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements and Manual Office Blood Pressure Measurements-Implications in Individual Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Project description:Purpose of reviewAutomated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurements may provide more accurate estimation of blood pressure (BP) than manual office blood pressure (MOBP) measurements. This systematic review investigated the diagnostic performance of AOBP and MOBP using ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) as reference. Several databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and China Academic Journals were searched. Data were extracted, double-checked by two investigators, and were analysed using a random effects model.Recent findingsA total of 26 observational studies were included. The mean systolic/diastolic BP obtained by AOBP was not significantly different from that obtained by ABPM. The sensitivity and specificity of AOBP to detect elevated BP were approximately 70%. Fewer participants had white-coat hypertension on AOBP measurement than on MOBP measurement (7% versus 14%); however, about 13% had masked hypertension on AOBP measurement. The width of the limit of agreement comparing (i) AOBP and ABPM and (ii) MOBP and ABPM was comparable. AOBP may reduce the rate of the observed white-coat effect but undermine masked hypertension. The current recommendation, however, is limited by the absence of high-quality studies and the high heterogeneity of our results. More high-quality studies using different AOBP machines and in different population are therefore needed.

| S-EPMC7810619 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of patients' confidence in office, ambulatory, and home blood pressure measurements as methods of assessing for hypertension.

Project description:Uncertainty exists when relying on office (clinic) blood pressure (BP) measurements to diagnose hypertension. Home BP monitoring and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) provide measurements that are more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease. The degree to which patients exhibit uncertainty about office BP measurements is unknown, as is whether they would have less uncertainty about other BP measurement methods. We therefore assessed people's confidence in methods of BP measurement, comparing perceptions about office BP monitoring, home BP monitoring, and ABPM techniques.We surveyed adults who were 30 years or older (n=193), all whom had undergone office BP measurements, two sessions of 24-h ABPM, and two 5-day periods of home BP monitoring. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of confidence on a 1 to 9 scale that BP measurements represented their 'usual' BP.Respondents had least confidence that assessments of BP made by office measurements (median 6) represented usual BP and greater confidence that assessments made by home BP monitoring (median 7, P<0.0001 vs. office) and ABPM (median 8, P<0.0001 vs. office) did so. Confidence levels did not vary significantly by BP levels, age, sex, race, or education level.The finding that patients do not have a great deal of confidence in office BP measurements, but have a higher degree of confidence in home BP and ambulatory BP assessment methods may be helpful in guiding strategies to diagnose hypertension and improve antihypertensive medication adherence.

| S-EPMC4631691 | biostudies-literature

Reliability of Office, Home, and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements and Correlation With Left Ventricular Mass.

Project description:BackgroundDetermining the reliability and predictive validity of office blood pressure (OBP), ambulatory BP (ABP), and home BP (HBP) can inform which is best for diagnosing hypertension and estimating risk of cardiovascular disease.ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the reliability of OBP, HBP, and ABP and evaluate their associations with left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in untreated persons.MethodsThe Improving the Detection of Hypertension (IDH) study, a community-based observational study, enrolled 408 participants who had OBP assessed at 3 visits, and completed 3 weeks of HBP, 2 24-h ABP recordings, and a 2-dimensional echocardiogram. Mean age was 41.2 ± 13.1 years, 59.5% were women, 25.5% African American, and 64.0% Hispanic.ResultsThe reliability of 1 week of HBP, 3 office visits with mercury sphygmomanometry, and 24-h ABP were 0.938, 0.894, and 0.846 for systolic and 0.918, 0.847, and 0.843 for diastolic BP, respectively. The correlations among OBP, HBP, and ABP, corrected for regression dilution bias, were 0.74 to 0.89. After multivariable adjustment including OBP and 24-h ABP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic HBP were associated with 5.07 (standard error [SE]: 1.48) and 3.92 (SE: 2.14) g/m2 higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for HBP, neither systolic or diastolic OBP nor ABP was associated with LVMI.ConclusionsOBP, HBP, and ABP assess somewhat distinct parameters. Compared with OBP (3 visits) or 24-h ABP, systolic and diastolic HBP (1 week) were more reliable and more strongly associated with LVMI. These data suggest that 1 week of HBP monitoring may be the best approach for diagnosing hypertension.

| S-EPMC7749264 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of office, ambulatory, and home blood pressure antihypertensive response to atenolol and hydrochlorthiazide.

Project description:Office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) demonstrate variable associations with outcomes. The authors sought to compare office BP (OBP), home BP (HBP), and ambulatory BP (ABP) for measuring responses to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), atenolol, and their combination. After completing washout, eligible patients were randomized to atenolol 50 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg daily. Doses were doubled after 3 weeks and the alternate drug was added after 6 weeks if BP was >120/70 mm Hg (chosen to allow maximum opportunity to assess genetic associations with dual BP therapy in the parent study). OBP (in triplicate), HBP (twice daily for 5 days), and 24-hour ABP were measured at baseline, after monotherapy, and after combination therapy. BP responses were compared between OBP, HBP, and ABP for each monotherapy and combination therapy. In 418 patients, OBP overestimated BP response compared with HBP, with an average 4.6 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic BP (P<.0001) and 2.1 mm Hg greater reduction in diastolic BP (P<.0001) across all therapies. Results were similar for atenolol and HCTZ monotherapy. ABP response was more highly correlated with HBP response (r=0.58) than with OBP response (r=0.47; P=.04). In the context of a randomized clinical trial, the authors have identified significant differences in HBP, OBP, and ABP methods of measuring BP response to atenolol and HCTZ monotherapy.

| S-EPMC2841560 | biostudies-literature

Algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using out-of-office blood pressure measurements.

Project description:The authors developed and validated a diagnostic algorithm using the optimal upper and lower cut-off values of office and home BP at which ambulatory BP measurements need to be applied. Patients presenting with high BP (≥140/90 mm Hg) at the outpatient clinic were referred to measure office, home, and ambulatory BP. Office and home BP were divided into hypertension, intermediate (requiring diagnosis using ambulatory BP), and normotension zones. The upper and lower BP cut-off levels of intermediate zone were determined corresponding to a level of 95% specificity and 95% sensitivity for detecting daytime ambulatory hypertension by using the receiver operator characteristic curve. A diagnostic algorithm using three methods, OBP-ABP: office BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if office BP is intermediate zone; OBP-HBP-ABP: office BP, subsequent home BP measurement if office BP is within intermediate zone and subsequent ambulatory BP measurement if home BP is within intermediate zone; and HBP-ABP: home BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if home BP is within intermediate zone, were developed and validated. In the development population (n = 256), the developed algorithm yielded better diagnostic accuracies than 75.8% (95%CI 70.1-80.9) for office BP alone and 76.2% (95%CI 70.5-81.3) for home BP alone as follows: 96.5% (95%CI: 93.4-98.4) for OBP-ABP, 93.4% (95%CI: 89.6-96.1) for OBP-HBP-ABP, and 94.9% (95%CI: 91.5-97.3%) for HBP-ABP. In the validation population (n = 399), the developed algorithm showed similarly improved diagnostic accuracy. The developed algorithm applying ambulatory BP measurement to the intermediate zone of office and home BP improves the diagnostic accuracy for hypertension.

| S-EPMC8630611 | biostudies-literature

Digit Preference in Office Blood Pressure Measurements, United States 2015-2019.

Project description:BackgroundBlood pressure (BP) measurement error may lead to under- or overtreatment of hypertension. One common source of error is terminal digit preference, most often a terminal digit of "0." The objective was to evaluate national trends in terminal digit preference in office BP measurements among adults with treated hypertension.MethodsData were from IQVIA's National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative, serial cross-sectional survey of office-based physicians. The analysis included office visits from 2015 to 2019 among adults aged ≥18 years receiving antihypertensive treatment. Annual trends were examined in the percent of systolic and diastolic BP measurements ending in zero by patient sex, age, and race/ethnicity, physician specialty, and first or subsequent hypertension treatment visit.ResultsFrom 2015 to 2019, there were ~60 million hypertension treatment visits annually (unweighted N: 5,585-9,085). There was a decrease in the percent of visits with systolic (41.7%-37.7%) or diastolic (42.7%-37.8%) BP recordings ending in zero. Trends were similar by patient characteristics. However, a greater proportion of measurements ended in zero among patients aged ≥80 (vs. 15-59 or 60-79) years, first (vs. subsequent) treatment visits, visits to cardiologists (vs. primary care physicians), and visits with systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 (vs. <140/90) mm Hg.ConclusionsDespite modest improvement, terminal digit preference remains a common problem in office BP measurement in the United States. Without bias, 10%-20% of measurements are expected to end in zero. Reducing digit preference is a priority for improving BP measurement accuracy and hypertension management.

| S-EPMC8628654 | biostudies-literature

Blood pressure measurements in research: suitability of auscultatory, beat-to-beat, and ambulatory blood pressure measurements.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to validate the accuracy of beat-to-beat measurements with those taken with an aneroid sphygmomanometer by auscultatory method. A secondary aim was to explore differences between auscultatory and beat-to-beat blood pressure (BP) with daytime ambulatory BP measurements. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS:A total of 46 participants, comprising 21 males, aged 47±13 years, height 171±8.5?cm and weight 82±16.8?kg attended the Exercise Physiology Laboratory at the University of New England (Armidale, New South Wales, Australia). During the visit, participants had their BP - systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) - measured using auscultatory methods and a Finometer. An ambulatory BP monitor was fitted during the same visit and worn for a minimum of 12?h. RESULTS:Auscultatory measurements were slightly higher than beat-to-beat for both SBP and DBP. There was no difference between auscultatory and beat-to-beat SBP with a mean difference of 0.23?mmHg (P=0.87). There were disparities between auscultatory and beat-to-beat DBP, with a mean difference of 4.82?mmHg (P<0.01). Daytime ambulatory BP was higher than both auscultatory and beat-to-beat measurements for both SBP and DBP, with P less than 0.001 for all measures. CONCLUSION:There was a high level of reliability in the beat-to-beat SBP with that seen by auscultatory; however, there were disparities in DBP measurements using the same devices, which raise concerns over the accuracy of beat-to-beat DBP. Ambulatory systolic and diastolic measures were higher than beat-to-beat and auscultatory; however, they may be more suitable for monitoring diurnal changes in BP, depending upon the research model.

| S-EPMC6314505 | biostudies-literature

Home blood pressure measurements for managing hypertension in hemodialysis patients.

Project description:Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring serves as a practical method to detect changes in BP instead of ambulatory BP monitoring in hemodialysis patients. To evaluate the relationship of reduction in home BP compared to interdialytic ambulatory BP measurements we analyzed the data from the dry-weight reduction in hypertensive hemodialysis patients (DRIP) trial in which 100 patients had their dry weight probed based on clinical sign and symptoms and 50 patients served as controls. We measured home BP 3 times a day for 1 week using a validated oscillometric monitor on 3 occasions at 4-week intervals after randomization. Changes from baseline in home, predialysis BP and postdialysis BP were compared to interdialytic 44-hour ambulatory BP. Home and ambulatory BP monitoring was available in 141 of 150 (94%) patients. Predialysis systolic BP was not as sensitive as ambulatory BP in detecting change in BP with dry-weight reduction. Whereas postdialysis BP was capable of detecting an improvement in systolic BP in response to probing dry weight, by itself it does not provide evidence that change in postdialysis BP persists over the interdialytic period. Home BP reliably detected changes in ambulatory BP, albeit with less sensitivity at 4 weeks. However, at 4 and at 8 weeks, changes in home systolic BP were most strongly related to changes in interdialytic ambulatory systolic BP compared to predialysis and postdialysis BP. The reproducibility of BP measurements followed the order home > ambulatory >> predialysis > postdialysis. These data provide support for the use of home BP monitoring for the management of hypertension in hemodialysis patients.

| S-EPMC2786027 | biostudies-literature

A novel approach to office blood pressure measurement: 30-minute office blood pressure vs daytime ambulatory blood pressure.

Project description:Current office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) is often not executed according to guidelines and cannot prevent the white-coat effect. Serial, automated, oscillometric OBPM has the potential to overcome both these problems. We therefore developed a 30-minute OBPM method that we compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure.Patients referred to a primary care diagnostic center for 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) had their blood pressure measured using the same validated ABPM device for both ABPM and 30-minute OBPMs. During 30-minute OBPM, blood pressure was measured automatically every 5 minutes with the patient sitting alone in a quiet room. The mean 30-minute OBPM (based on t = 5 to t = 30 minutes) was compared with mean daytime ABPM using paired t tests and the approach described by Bland and Altman on method comparison.We analyzed data from 84 patients (mean age 57 years; 61% female). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures differed from 0 to 2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -2 to 2 mm Hg and from 0 to 3 mm Hg) between mean 30-minute OBPM and daytime ABPM, respectively. The limits of agreement were between -19 and 19 mm Hg for systolic and -10 and 13 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressures. Both 30-minute OBPM and daytime ABPM classified normotension, white-coat hypertension, masked hypertension, and sustained hypertension equally.The 30-minute OBPM appears to agree well with daytime ABPM and has the potential to detect white-coat and masked hypertension. This finding makes 30-minute OBPM a promising new method to determine blood pressure during diagnosis and follow-up of patients with elevated blood pressures.

| S-EPMC3056860 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data