Comparison of awake ambulatory blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using linear regression analysis in untreated patients in routine clinical practice

Objective We assessed differences and correlations between 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and office blood pressure (OBP) monitoring. Methods We conducted an observational study among 85 untreated patients with essential hypertension and measured 24-hour ABP, OBP, target organ damage (TOD) markers, and metabolism indexes. Variance analysis and the Pearson method were used to compare differences and correlation between the two methods. The Spearman or Pearson method was applied to compare the correlation between TOD markers, blood pressure index, and metabolism index. Linear regression analysis was applied to estimate the quantitative relationship between the blood pressure index and TOD markers. Results There were significant differences in the mean and variance of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure and a positive correlation between ABP and OBP. Correlations between the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and average ambulatory SBP, daytime ambulatory SBP, nighttime ambulatory SBP, and fasting blood glucose were significant. Correlations between left intima-media thickness (IMT) and average ambulatory SBP, nighttime ambulatory SBP, right IMT, and nighttime ambulatory SBP were significant. In linear regression analysis of the LVMI (y) and ambulatory SBP (x), the equation was expressed as y = 0.637*x. Conclusion Nighttime ambulatory SBP may be an optimal predictor of TOD.

Download Full-text

USE OF AUTOMATED OFFICE BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT IN ROUTINE CLINICAL PRACTICE: 2A.06

Journal of Hypertension ◽

10.1097/01.hjh.0000378269.27156.fd ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 28 ◽

pp. e14-e15

Author(s):

MG Myers ◽

M Godwin ◽

M Dawes ◽

A Kiss ◽

SW Tobe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Pressure Measurement ◽

Blood Pressure Measurement ◽

Routine Clinical Practice ◽

Office Blood Pressure ◽

Automated Office Blood Pressure

Download Full-text

Impact of 30- Versus 60-Second Time Intervals Between Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements on Measured Blood Pressure

Hypertension ◽

10.1161/hypertensionaha.121.17876 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 78 (5) ◽

pp. 1502-1510

Author(s):

Stephen P. Juraschek ◽

Anthony M. Ishak ◽

Kenneth J. Mukamal ◽

Julia M. Wood ◽

Timothy S. Anderson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Linear Regression ◽

Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽

The Other ◽

Pressure Measurements ◽

Time Intervals ◽

Interaction Term ◽

Automated Office Blood Pressure ◽

The Relationship

Guidelines recommend 1 to 2 minutes between repeated, automated office-based blood pressure (AOBP) measures, which is a barrier to broader adoption. Patients from a single hypertension center underwent a 3-day evaluation that included a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitor (ABPM) and one of two nonrandomized, unattended AOBP protocols. Half of the patients underwent 3 AOBP measurements separated by 30 seconds, and the other half underwent 3 BP measurements separated by 60 seconds. All measurements were compared with the average awake-time BP from ABPM and the first AOBP measurement. We used linear regression to assess whether the 30-second protocol was associated with individual or average AOBP measurements or awake-time ABPM and used an interaction term to determine whether interval modified the relationship between AOBP measurements (individual and mean) with awake-time ABPM. Among 102 patients (mean age, 59.2±16.2 years; 64% women; 24% Black), the average awake-time BP was 132.5±15.6/77.7±12.2 mm Hg among those who underwent the 60-second protocol and 128.6±13.6/76.5±12.5 mm Hg for the 30-second protocol. Mean systolic/diastolic BP was lower with the second and third AOBP measurement by −0.5/−1.7 mm Hg and −1.0/−2.3 mm Hg for the 60-second protocol versus −0.8/−2.0 mm Hg and −0.7/−2.7 mm Hg for the 30-second protocol; protocol did not significantly modify these differences. Differences between AOBP measurements (first, second, or third) and awake-time ABPM were nearly identical across protocols. In conclusion, a 30-second interval between AOBP measurements was as accurate and reliable as a 60-second interval. These findings support shorter time intervals between BP measurements, which would make AOBP more feasible in clinical practice.

Download Full-text