Pediatric Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: Feasibility and Concordance With Clinic-Based Manual Blood Pressure Measurements.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Brady TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9531449 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pediatric Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: Feasibility and Concordance With Clinic-Based Manual Blood Pressure Measurements.
Brady Tammy M TM Goilav Beatrice B Tarini Beth A BA Heo Moonseong M Bundy David G DG Rea Corinna J CJ Twombley Katherine K Giuliano Kimberly K Orringer Kelly K Kelly Peterkaye P Rinke Michael L ML
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 20220819 10
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared with home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and clinic blood pressure monitoring (CBPM) in diagnosing hypertension in Australia.MethodsA cohort-based Markov model was built from the Payer's perspective (Australian government) comparing lifetime costs and effectiveness of ABPM, HBPM and CBPM in people aged ≥ 35 years with suspected hypertension who have a CBPM between ≥ 140/90 mmHg and ≤ 180/110 mmHg using a sphygmomanometer and have not yet commenced antihypertensive treatment. The main outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) assessing cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-years (LYs) gained by ABPM versus HBPM and CBPM. Cost was measured in Australian dollars (A$).ResultsOver a lifetime model, ABPM had lower total costs (A$8,491) compared with HBPM (A$9,648) and CBPM (A$10,206) per person. ABPM was associated with a small but significant improvement in the quality and quantity of life for people with suspected hypertension with 12.872 QALYs and 17.449 LYs compared with 12.857 QALYs and 17.433 LYs with HBPM, and 12.850 QALYs and 17.425 LYs with CBPM. In the base-case analysis, ABPM dominated HBPM and CBPM. In scenario analyses, at 100% specificity of HBPM, ABPM no longer remained cost effective at a A$50,000/QALY threshold. However, in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, over 10,000 iterations, ABPM remained dominant.ConclusionABPM was the dominant strategy for confirming the diagnosis of hypertension among Australian adults aged ≥ 35 years old with suspected hypertension. The findings of this study are important for reimbursement decision makers to support policy change and for clinicians to make practice changes consistent with ABPM recommendations in primary care.
| S-EPMC9929017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis.ObjectiveCompare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension.Design, setting, and participantsDiagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic.InterventionsRandomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks.Main measuresPrimary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes.Key resultsFive hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively.LimitationsSingle health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation.ConclusionsCompared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.
| S-EPMC9485334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment.Data sourcesMedline (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medion, ARIF, and TRIP up to May 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible studies examined diagnosis of hypertension in adults of all ages using home and/or clinic blood pressure measurement compared with those made using ambulatory monitoring that clearly defined thresholds to diagnose hypertension.ResultsThe 20 eligible studies used various thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension, and only seven studies (clinic) and three studies (home) could be directly compared with ambulatory monitoring. Compared with ambulatory monitoring thresholds of 135/85 mm Hg, clinic measurements over 140/90 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 60.7% to 84.8%) and 74.6% (47.9% to 90.4%), respectively, whereas home measurements over 135/85 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% (78.0% to 91.0%) and 62.4% (48.0% to 75.0%).ConclusionsNeither clinic nor home measurement had sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be recommended as a single diagnostic test. If ambulatory monitoring is taken as the reference standard, then treatment decisions based on clinic or home blood pressure alone might result in substantial overdiagnosis. Ambulatory monitoring before the start of lifelong drug treatment might lead to more appropriate targeting of treatment, particularly around the diagnostic threshold.
| S-EPMC3122300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Home blood pressure monitoring is the self-measurement of blood pressure by patients. In the diagnosis and management of high blood pressure it is complementary to 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and clinic blood pressure measurements. Home monitoring can also help to identify white-coat and masked hypertension. Home monitoring has good reproducibility, is well tolerated and relatively inexpensive. It is superior to blood pressure taken in the clinic in predicting cardiovascular events and mortality. Twice-daily measurements are recommended, usually in the morning and evening for a minimum of five days. The threshold for defining hypertension is an average home blood pressure of 135/85 mmHg or above. Patients are engaged with their management when they monitor their own blood pressure. This results in increased adherence to therapy and lower blood pressure.
| S-EPMC4654038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: Increasing attention is being paid to the role of the intelligent self-management of hypertension under the context of increasing prevalence but limited medical resources. However, heterogeneity in interventions and outcome measures has hindered the interpretation of research evaluating mobile health technologies for hypertension control, and little study of such technology has been performed in China. Objective: This was a feasibility study aimed to understand patient and medical practitioners' acceptance and experience of a mobile-phone based platform for the management of hypertensive patients. Methods: The model used behavioral incentives for daily blood pressure measurement and physician-facing prioritization of patients based on level of blood-pressure control. Patients were enrolled by purposive sampling. The platform was used for two-week blood pressure monitoring through WeChat, which simulated our future app. Qualitative interviews with patients and providers were conducted in time. Results: Twenty hypertensive patients and two providers were enrolled and used the platform throughout the two weeks. Patients reported daily home blood pressure monitoring to be simple, feasible and increased their health awareness. Specifically, patients self-reported that reminders, the daily frequency and time of monitoring, and positive reinforcement were important for maintaining adherence. Providers reported that they could manage patients more quickly and accurately, but reasonable feedback information was needed to avoid excessive increases in workload. Conclusion: The adoption of mobile-based technology to monitor patient's blood pressure may provide a practical solution for managing patients in Chongqing, China. Patient health education and enhanced app functionality could improve patient compliance and satisfaction while reducing provider workload.
| S-EPMC6765873 | biostudies-other
Project description:Guidelines recommend measuring out-of-clinic blood pressure (BP) to identify masked hypertension (MHT) defined by out-of-clinic BP in the hypertensive range among individuals with clinic-measured BP not in the hypertensive range. The aim of this study was to determine the overlap between ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM) for the detection of MHT. We analyzed data from 333 community-dwelling adults not taking antihypertensive medication with clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg in the IDH study (Improving the Detection of Hypertension). Any MHT was defined by the presence of daytime MHT (mean daytime BP ≥135/85 mm Hg), 24-hour MHT (mean 24-hour BP ≥130/80 mm Hg), or nighttime MHT (mean nighttime BP ≥120/70 mm Hg). Home MHT was defined as mean BP ≥135/85 mm Hg on HBPM. The prevalence of MHT was 25.8% for any MHT and 11.1% for home MHT. Among participants with MHT on either ABPM or HBPM, 29.5% had MHT on both ABPM and HBPM; 61.1% had MHT only on ABPM; and 9.4% of participants had MHT only on HBPM. After multivariable adjustment and compared with participants without MHT on ABPM and HBPM, those with MHT on both ABPM and HBPM and only on ABPM had a higher left ventricular mass index (mean difference [SE], 12.7 [2.9] g/m2, P<0.001; and 4.9 [2.1] g/m2, P=0.022, respectively), whereas participants with MHT only on HBPM did not have an increased left ventricular mass index (mean difference [SE], -1.9 [4.8] g/m2, P=0.693). These data suggest that conducting ABPM will detect many individuals with MHT who have an increased cardiovascular disease risk.
| S-EPMC6207212 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9363073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation.ObjectiveTo compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement.DesignComparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants.ParticipantsAdults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit.MeasuresPatient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed.Key resultsFive hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM.ConclusionsParticipants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.
| S-EPMC9845022 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10713445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Blood pressure ( BP ) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goals of this analysis are to evaluate concordance between (1) clinic and ambulatory BP , (2) clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability, and (3) first and second ambulatory BP and to evaluate whether different clinic targets affect these relationships. Methods and Results The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 participants at the 27-month follow-up visit and obtained a second reading in 203 participants 293±84 days afterward. There was considerable lack of agreement between clinic and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement in Bland-Altman plots of -21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and -26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. Overall, there was poor agreement between clinic visit-to-visit variability and ambulatory BP variability with correlation coefficients for systolic and diastolic BP all <0.16. We observed a high correlation between first and second ambulatory BP ; however, the limits of agreement were wide in both the intensive group (-27 to 21 mm Hg) and the standard group (-23 to 20 mm Hg). Conclusions We found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic and ambulatory BP and second ambulatory BP . Results did not differ by treatment arm. These results reinforce the need for multiple BP measurements before clinical decision making.
| S-EPMC6662121 | biostudies-literature