Uneven Accuracy of Home Blood Pressure Measurement: A Multicentric Survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Flacco ME
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8032095 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundUsing high awake blood pressure (BP; ≥130/80 mm Hg) on ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) as a reference, the purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of high office BP (≥130/80 mm Hg) at an initial visit and high confirmatory office BP (≥130/80 mm Hg), and separately, high home BP (≥130/80 mm Hg) among participants with high office BP (≥130/80 mm Hg) at an initial office visit.Methods and resultsThe accuracy of office BP measurements using the oscillometric method for detecting high BP on ABPM was determined among 379 participants with complete office BP and ABPM data in the IDH (Improving the Detection of Hypertension) study. For detecting high BP on ABPM, the accuracy of high confirmatory office BP using the oscillometric method and, separately, high home BP was also determined among the subgroup of 122 participants with high office BP at an initial visit and complete home BP monitoring data. High office BP had moderate sensitivity (0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.68]) and high specificity (0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.90]) for high awake BP. High confirmatory office BP and high home BP had moderate sensitivity (0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.79] and 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71-0.87], respectively) and low and moderate specificity (0.44 [95% CI, 0.27-0.61] and 0.72 [95% CI, 0.56-0.88], respectively).ConclusionsMany individuals with high BP on ABPM do not have high office BP. Confirmatory office BP and home blood pressure monitoring also had limited ability to identify individuals with high BP on ABPM.
| S-EPMC10863761 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9309348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The lack of outcome-driven operational thresholds limits the clinical application of home blood pressure (BP) measurement. Our objective was to determine an outcome-driven reference frame for home BP measurement. We measured home and clinic BP in 6470 participants (mean age, 59.3 years; 56.9% women; 22.4% on antihypertensive treatment) recruited in Ohasama, Japan (n=2520); Montevideo, Uruguay (n=399); Tsurugaya, Japan (n=811); Didima, Greece (n=665); and nationwide in Finland (n=2075). In multivariable-adjusted analyses of individual subject data, we determined home BP thresholds, which yielded 10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated with stages 1 (120/80 mm Hg) and 2 (130/85 mm Hg) prehypertension, and stages 1 (140/90 mm Hg) and 2 (160/100 mm Hg) hypertension on clinic measurement. During 8.3 years of follow-up (median), 716 cardiovascular end points, 294 cardiovascular deaths, 393 strokes, and 336 cardiac events occurred in the whole cohort; in untreated participants these numbers were 414, 158, 225, and 194, respectively. In the whole cohort, outcome-driven systolic/diastolic thresholds for the home BP corresponding with stages 1 and 2 prehypertension and stages 1 and 2 hypertension were 121.4/77.7, 127.4/79.9, 133.4/82.2, and 145.4/86.8 mm Hg; in 5018 untreated participants, these thresholds were 118.5/76.9, 125.2/79.7, 131.9/82.4, and 145.3/87.9 mm Hg, respectively. Rounded thresholds for stages 1 and 2 prehypertension and stages 1 and 2 hypertension amounted to 120/75, 125/80, 130/85, and 145/90 mm Hg, respectively. Population-based outcome-driven thresholds for home BP are slightly lower than those currently proposed in hypertension guidelines. Our current findings could inform guidelines and help clinicians in diagnosing and managing patients.
| S-EPMC3607331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Blood pressure (BP) monitors rely on pulse detection. Some blood pressure monitors use pulse timings to analyse pulse interval variability for arrhythmia screening, but this assumes that the pulse interval timings detected from BP cuffs are accurate compared with RR intervals derived from ECG. In this study we compared the accuracy of pulse intervals detected using an ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) with single lead ECG. Twenty participants wore an ABPM for three hours and a data logger which synchronously measured cuff pressure and ECG. RR intervals were compared with corresponding intervals derived from the cuff pressure tracings using three different pulse landmarks. Linear mixed effects models were used to assess differences between ECG and cuff pressure timings and to investigate the effect of potential covariates. In addition, the maximum number of successive oscillometric beats detectable in a measurement was assessed. From 243 BP measurements, the landmark at the foot of the oscillometric pulse was found to be associated with fewest covariates and had a random error of 9.5?ms. 99% of the cuff pressure recordings had more than 10 successive detectable oscillometric beats. RR intervals can be accurately estimated using an ABPM.
| S-EPMC5120306 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAwareness of hypertension and blood pressure (BP) control rates are still low in India. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is recognized as a valuable tool to diagnose and support hypertension treatment including the prevention of cardiovascular diseases(CVD) and target organ damage. We explored the prevailing knowledge and current recommendation of HBPM in daily practice by physicians in India.Materials and methodsAs part of Asia HBPM Survey 2020, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare providers from India between June 2020 to June 2021. The questionnaire consisted of 37 questions and sub-questions related to HBPM awareness and recommendations to patients.ResultsA total of 832 physicians participated in the survey. Almost 83% were male, whereas age, specialty and workplace were well distributed. 31.3% of physicians instruct their patients to measure their BP before taking antihypertensive drugs, while around 30% of physicians gave no instructions. The reference value of hypertension diagnosis amongst the physicians was substantially low based on clinic BP (34.4%) and home BP (15.1%). Among physicians who manage hypertensive patients, nearly 88% recommend HBPM to their patients, however, only 34.9% of their patients own HBPM device and 30.4% of the patients measure their own BP at home.ConclusionThe survey reveals that HBPM instructions to the patients are either lacking or not well aligned with the local hypertension guidelines which may have led to the low HBPM use among patients. Clear and practical educational material and sessions are needed to improve the understanding of HBPM amongst physicians.
| S-EPMC10258377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Knowledge of the status of real-world home blood pressure (BP) measurements is crucial for establishing policies promoting hypertension treatment through home BP monitoring. However, only a few studies have investigated the status of home BP measurements in real-world settings. This study investigated the practice of Korean patients in measuring BP at home. This study recruited participants aged ≥20 years who were taking antihypertensives and conducted a questionnaire-based survey on home BP measurements. Of 701 participants recruited between August 2018 and April 2020, 673 were included in the analysis. Of these, 359 (53.3%) possessed home BP measurement devices. The devices used by 184 (51.3%) participants were validated, 110 (30.6%) were nonvalidated, and 65 (18.1%) had an unknown validation status. Only 18 patients (5.0%) with home BP devices were aware of the validation tests for home BP measurement devices. Of the 673 participants, 278 (41.3%) measured BP at home (77.4% of the patients owned home BP measurement devices). Among them, at least 74 (26.6%) performed proper measurements (at least once a month, at least twice a day or twice at a time, after at least 1 minute of rest, with at least a 1-min interval between each measurement, and 30 min after drinking coffee, exercising, or smoking). In conclusion, our community-based survey in the nonpresentive Korean population revealed a low rate of home BP measurement, a high rate of using nonvalidated devices, and a high rate of inappropriate measurements, suggesting that more efforts toward patient education regarding home BP measurements are needed.
| S-EPMC11232443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHypertension and cognitive impairment often coexist in older people. Office blood pressure measurement is a poor indicator for diagnosing hypertension in the general population. However, its diagnostic accuracy has not been substantially studied in patients with cognitive impairment.AimThe aim of this study was to determine the proportion of misdiagnosis of hypertension in patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia compared to no cognitive impairment, by comparing office blood pressure measurement with home blood pressure measurement.MethodsA cross-sectional study including consecutive patients visiting a memory clinic between 2014 and 2017. Home blood pressure was measured for one week according to the European guidelines. Office blood pressure was assessed during routine clinical practice. Using guideline definitions for normal blood pressure and hypertension, we investigated the proportion of disagreement between office blood pressure measurement and home blood pressure measurement. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression compared disagreement in diagnosis between patients with dementia, mild cognitive impairment and no cognitive impairment.ResultsOf 213 patients (aged 73.4±9.0 years, 42% women) 82 had dementia, 65 had mild cognitive impairment and 66 had no cognitive impairment. Mean office blood pressure was 156/84±23/11 mmHg and mean home blood pressure was 139/79±16/10 mmHg. In 31% of patients, there was disagreement in hypertension diagnosis. This proportion was higher for mild cognitive impairment (38.5%) and dementia (35.4%) compared to no cognitive impairment (18.2%), with adjusted odds ratios of 3.7 (95% confidence interval 1.5-9.0), P=0.005 for mild cognitive impairment and 3.4 (1.3-8.6), P=0.011 for dementia.ConclusionsIn memory clinic patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment, the diagnostic accuracy of office blood pressure measurement is lower compared to patients without cognitive impairment. To avoid the risk of making improper treatment decisions in this vulnerable group, a diagnosis of hypertension should be based on home blood pressure measurement, not office blood pressure measurement.
| S-EPMC6764005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The optimal approach to measuring office blood pressure (BP) is uncertain. We aimed to compare BP measurement protocols that differed based on numbers of readings within and between visits and by assessment method. METHODS:We enrolled a sample of 707 employees without known hypertension or cardiovascular disease, and obtained 6 standardized BP readings during each of 3 office visits at least 1 week apart, using mercury sphygmomanometer and BpTRU oscillometric devices (18 readings per participant) for a total of 12,645 readings. We used confirmatory factor analysis to develop a model estimating "true" office BP that could be used to compare the probability of correctly classifying participants' office BP status using differing numbers and types of office BP readings. RESULTS:Averaging 2 systolic BP readings across 2 visits correctly classified participants as having BP below or above the 140 mm Hg threshold at least 95% of the time if the averaged reading was <134 or >149 mm Hg, respectively. Our model demonstrated that more confidence was gained by increasing the number of visits with readings than by increasing the number of readings within a visit. No clinically significant confidence was gained by dropping the first reading vs. averaging all readings, nor by measuring with a manual mercury device vs. with an automated oscillometric device. CONCLUSIONS:Averaging 2 BP readings across 2 office visits appeared to best balance increased confidence in office BP status with efficiency of BP measurement, though the preferred measurement strategy may vary with the clinical context.
| S-EPMC7190886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several novel cuffless wearable devices and smartphone applications claiming that they can measure blood pressure (BP) are appearing on the market. These technologies are very attractive and promising, with increasing interest among health care professionals for their potential use. Moreover, they are becoming popular among patients with hypertension and healthy people. However, at the present time, there are serious issues about BP measurement accuracy of cuffless devices and the 2021 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines on BP measurement do not recommend them for clinical use. Cuffless devices have special validation issues, which have been recently recognized. It is important to note that the 2018 Universal Standard for the validation of automated BP measurement devices developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, the European Society of Hypertension, and the International Organization for Standardization is inappropriate for the validation of cuffless devices. Unfortunately, there is an increasing number of publications presenting data on the accuracy of novel cuffless BP measurement devices, with inadequate methodology and potentially misleading conclusions. The objective of this review is to facilitate understanding of the capabilities and limitations of emerging cuffless BP measurement devices. First, the potential and the types of these devices are described. Then, the unique challenges in evaluating the BP measurement accuracy of cuffless devices are explained. Studies from the literature and computer simulations are employed to illustrate these challenges. Finally, proposals are given on how to evaluate cuffless devices including presenting and interpreting relevant study results.
| S-EPMC8516718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is a useful tool for hypertension management. BP variability (BPV) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. However, little is known about the correlation between BPV and different measurement patterns of long-term home BP monitoring. This longitudinal cohort study aimed to assess the associations between dynamic BP measurement patterns and BPV. A total of 1128 participants (mean age, 77.4 ± 9.3 years; male, 51%) with 23 269 behavior measuring units were included. We used sliding window sampling to classify the home BP data with a regular 6-month interval into units in a sliding manner until the data are not continuous. Three measurement patterns (stable frequent [SF], stable infrequent [SI], and unstable [US]) were assessed based on the home BP data obtained within the first 3 months of the study, and the data in the subsequent 3 months were used to assess the BPV of that unit. We used linear mixed-effects model to assess the association between BP measurement patterns and BPV with adjustment for possible confounding factors including average BP. Average real variability and coefficient variability were used as measures of the BPV. No significant differences were observed in average BP between the SF, SI, and US patterns. However, BPV in the SF group was significantly lower than that in the US and SI groups (all p-values < .05). The BPV in SI and US groups was not significantly different. A stable and frequent BP measuring pattern was independently associated with a lower BPV.
| S-EPMC8029514 | biostudies-literature