Abstract MP71: Impact Of 30 Versus 60 Second Time Interval Between Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements On Measured Blood Pressure

Hypertension ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L Cluett ◽  
Stephen P Juraschek ◽  
Kenneth J Mukamal ◽  
Anthony Ishak ◽  
Julia Wood
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Patient Positioning ◽  
Office Visit ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Cuff Inflation ◽  
Minute Period ◽  
Improve Accuracy ◽  
Rest Time ◽  
Automated Office Blood Pressure

Background: Guidelines advocate for the use of automated office-based blood pressure (AOBP) measurement to improve accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurement in the outpatient clinical setting. Current recommendations include a 5-minute period of quiet rest prior to obtaining 3 readings, each separated by 1-2 minutes. As a result, AOBP requires a minimum of 7 minutes of rest time in addition to proper patient positioning plus cuff inflation and deflation, adding nearly 10 minutes to an office visit. Reducing this by even 1 minute has broad implications for the widespread use of AOBP. Methods: Patients from a single hypertension center underwent a 3-day evaluation that included a 24-hour ambulatory BP monitor (ABPM) and one of two, non-randomized, unattended AOBP protocols. Half of patients underwent 3 BP measurements separated by 30 seconds and the other half underwent 3 BP measurements separated by 60 seconds. All measurements were compared to the average awake-time BP from ABPM as well as the first AOBP measurement. Results: Among 102 patients, the average awake-time BP was 128.6±13.6/76.5±12.5 mmHg for the 30-second protocol and 132.5±15.6/77.7±12.2 mmHg among those who underwent the 60-second protocol . Mean BP was lower with the 2nd and 3rd AOBP measurement by -0.5/-1.7 mmHg and -1.0/-2.3 mmHg for the 60-second protocol versus -0.8/-2.0 mmHg and -0.7/-2.7 mmHg for the 30-second protocol ( Figure ). Differences between AOBP measurements (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) and awake-time ABPM were nearly identical across protocols. Conclusion: A 30-second interval between AOBP measurements was as accurate and reliable as a 60-second interval.

The Gap Between Manual and Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements Results at a Hypertension Clinic

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 653-657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Félix Rinfret ◽  
Lyne Cloutier ◽  
Hélène L'Archevêque ◽  
Martine Gauthier ◽  
Mikhael Laskine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Office Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Hypertension Clinic ◽  
Automated Office Blood Pressure

scholarly journals Accuracy of abbreviated protocols for unattended automated office blood pressure measurements, a retrospective study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248586
Author(s):  
Annina S. Vischer ◽  
Rebecca Hug ◽  
Thenral Socrates ◽  
Andrea Meienberg ◽  
Michael Mayr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Blood Pressure Measurement ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Single Measurement ◽  
Single Centre ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Single Centre Study ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Automated Office Blood Pressure

Background Blood pressure measurement (BPM) is one of the most often performed procedures in clinical practice, but especially office BPM is prone to errors. Unattended automated office BPM (AOBPM) is somewhat standardised and observer-independent, but time and space consuming. We aimed to assess whether an AOBPM protocol can be abbreviated without losing accuracy. Design In our retrospective single centre study, we used all AOBPM (AOBPM protocol of the SPRINT study), collected over 14 months. Three sequential BPM (after 5 minutes of rest, spaced 2 minutes) were automatically recorded with the patient alone in a quiet room resulting in three systolic and diastolic values. We compared the mean of all three (RefProt) with the mean of the first two (ShortProtA) and the single first BPM (ShortProtB). Results We analysed 413 AOBPM sets from 210 patients. Mean age was 52±16 years. Mean values for RefProt were 128.3/81.3 mmHg, for ShortProtA 128.4/81.4 mmHg, for ShortProtB 128.8/81.4 mmHg. Mean difference and limits of agreement for RefProt vs. ShortProtA and ShortProtB were -0.1±4.2/-0.1±2.8 mmHg and -0.5±8.1/-0.1±5.3 mmHg, respectively. With ShortProtA, 83% of systolic and 92% of diastolic measurements were within 2 mmHg from RefProt (67/82% for ShortProtB). ShortProtA or ShortProtB led to no significant hypertensive reclassifications in comparison to RefProt (p-values 0.774/1.000/1.000/0.556). Conclusion Based on our results differences between the RefProt and ShortProtA are minimal and within acceptable limits of agreement. Therefore, the automated procedure may be shorted from 3 to 2 measurements, but a single measurement is insufficient.

Clinician accountability in a primary care clinic time-interval blood pressure measurements study: Practice implications

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 69-72
Author(s):  
Johnny R. Tice ◽  
Leslie G. Cole ◽  
Stephen M. Ungvary ◽  
Safiya D. George ◽  
JoAnn S. Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Care Clinic

scholarly journals Attended and Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements Have Better Agreement With Ambulatory Monitoring Than Conventional Office Readings

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel A. Andreadis ◽  
Charalampia V. Geladari ◽  
Epameinondas T. Angelopoulos ◽  
Florentia S. Savva ◽  
Anna I. Georgantoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Ambulatory Monitoring ◽  
Office Blood Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Automated Office Blood Pressure

scholarly journals Comparative evaluation of blood pressure measuring equipment

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Erika Kaori Oka ◽  
Liza Taveira Fleury Curado ◽  
Lucio Murilo Dos Santos ◽  
Mauro Santamaria ◽  
Michelle Bianchi Moraes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Systolic Blood Pressure ◽  
Diastolic Blood Pressure ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Measuring Equipment ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Pressure Measurements ◽  
Blood Pressure Monitors ◽  
Mercury Column

<p><strong>Objective</strong>: This study evaluated the agreement of blood pressure measurements obtained through different auscultatory and oscillometric automated/semi-automated monitors. <strong>Material</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Methods</strong>: The blood pressure of 30 participants was evaluated by a single calibrated examiner. The measurements were carried out through either auscultatory monitor (mercury column or aneroid) or automated/semiautomated oscillometric pulse monitors. For each participant, 5 min rest was established by sitting on dental chair and the measurements were always carried out on the left arm, at the heart level. Three consecutive measurements were performed with the four monitors in each participant with a minimum time interval of five minutes between each measurement. All monitors were properly calibrated and certified by INMETRO. The results were submitted to intraclass correlation coefficient and Friedman’s analysis of variance. <strong>Results</strong>: The measurements of systolic blood pressure for both auscultatory and oscillometric methods were similar. The measurements of diastolic blood pressure for auscultatory monitors were similar (p &gt; 0.05); as well as for oscillometric monitors (p &gt; 0.05). However, when auscultatory and oscillometric monitors were compared, there were statistically significant differences in diastolic blood pressure (p &lt; 0.05). <strong>Conclusion</strong>: It was verified a difference in the results between the auscultatory and oscillometric blood pressure monitors. The systolic blood pressure measurements exhibited similar correlations, while<br />diastolic blood pressure measurements showed different correlations. </p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document