Differences of blood pressure estimates between consecutive measurements on one occasion: Implications for inter-study comparability of epidemiologic studies (original) (raw)

Abstract

Currently, substantial variation in epidemiologic studies exists regarding the number of blood pressure (BP) readings obtained and the way in which they are combined. This might result in systematically different BP estimates. We therefore analysed data from 25,891 subjects (10,124 men and 15,767 women) of the EPIC-Potsdam Study (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) to estimate the magnitude of differences between consecutive BP readings and their combinations. Three measurements with 2 min intervals were performed in the sitting position on the right arm with the supported arm elevated at heart level by trained interviewers using oscillometric devices. Mean BP declined from first to second reading and further to third reading by systolic 5.0/0.9 mmHg in men and 4.9/0.8 mmHg in women and by diastolic 1.5/0.3 mmHg in men and 1.9/0.5 mmHg in women, as well as pulse pressure (PP) (3.5/0.6 in men, 3.0/0.3 in women) and hypertension prevalence (9.1/1.7%-points). The magnitude of BP decline depended on BP level, age, body mass index (BMI), and BP medication. Combinations including the first reading lead to generally higher estimates than subsequent readings or their combination. Published data on mean BP, PP and hypertension prevalence depend on the number and subsequent handling of BP readings which might introduce bias to the comparison of different studies unless the same defined readings were used. The combination of the second and third reading seems to be favourable over any single reading or other combinations.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frohlich ED, Grim C, Labarthe DR, et al. Recommendations for human blood pressure determination with sphygmomanometers. AHA News 1994; No. 70–1005: 210A-221A.
  2. Mancia G, Bertinieri G, Grassi G, et al. Effects of blood-pressure measurement by the doctor on patient's blood pressure and heart rate. Lancet 1983; 2: 695–698.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  3. Souchek J, Stamler J, Dyer AR, et al. The value of two or three versus a single reading of blood pressure at a first visit. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 197–210.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  4. Wietlisbach V, Rickenbach M, Burnand B, et al. Combining repeated blood pressure measurements to obtain prevalences of high blood pressure. Acta Med Scand Suppl 1988; 728: 165–168.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  5. van Loo JM, Peer PG, Thien TA. Twenty-five minutes between blood pressure readings: The influence on prevalence rates of isolated systolic hypertension. J Hypertens 1986; 4: 631–635.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  6. Dwyer JH, Li L, Dwyer KM, et al. Dietary calcium, alcohol, and incidence of treated hypertension in the NHANES I epidemiologic follow-up study. Am J Ep idemiol 1996; 144: 828–838.
    Google Scholar
  7. MONICA Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1986.
  8. Stamler J. The INTERSALT Study: Background, methods, findings, and implications. Am J Clin Nutr 1997; 65: 626S-642S.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Dannenberg AL, Garrison RJ, Kannel WB. Incidence of hypertension in the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health 1988; 78: 676–679.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  10. Whelton PK, Kumanyika SK, Cook NR, et al. Efficacy of nonpharmacologic interventions in adults with high-normal blood pressure: Results from phase 1 of the Trials of Hypertension Prevention. Trials of Hypertension Prevention Collaborative Research Group. Am J Clin Nutr 1997; 65: 652S-660S.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Keil U, Stieber J, Doring A, et al. The cardiovascular risk factor profile in the study area Augsburg. Results from the first MONICA survey 1984/85. Acta Med Scand Suppl 1988; 728: 119–128.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  12. The ARIC investigators. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study: Design and objectives. Am J Epidemiol 1989; 129: 687–702.
    Google Scholar
  13. Mancia G, Ulian L, Parati G, et al. Increase in blood pressure reproducibility by repeated semi-automatic blood pressure measurements in the clinic environment. J Hypertens 1994; 12: 469–473.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  14. Mo R, Lund-Johansen P, Omvik P. How much is the decrease in blood pressure shown by repeated measurements during the same examination? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1993; 113: 214–217 (Abstract).
    PubMed Google Scholar
  15. Jamieson MJ, Webster J, Philips S, et al. The measurement of blood pressure: Sitting or supine, once or twice? J Hypertens 1990; 8: 635–640.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  16. Burstyn P, O'Donovan B, Charlton I. Blood pressure variability: The effects of repeated measurement. Postgrad Med J 1981; 57: 488–491.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  17. Fagan TC, Conrad KA, Mayshar PV, et al. Single versus triplicate measurements of blood pressure and heart rate. Hypertension 1988; 11: 282–284.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  18. Slaby A, Josifko M. Does sequential automated mea-surement improve the estimate of resting blood pressure? J Hum Hypertens 1992; 6: 31–34.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  19. Carel RS, Silverberg DS, Shoenfeld Y, et al. Changes in blood pressure in the lying and sitting positions in normotensive, borderline and hypertensive subjects. Am J Med Sci 1983; 285: 2–11.
    Google Scholar
  20. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Variability of blood pressure and the results of screening in the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 651–667.
    Google Scholar
  21. Alderman MH. A new model of risk: Implications of increasing pulse pressure and systolic blood pressure on cardiovascular disease. J Hypertens 1999; 17 (Suppl 5): S25-S28.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  22. Benetos A. Pulse pressure and cardiovascular risk. J Hypertens 1999; 17 (Suppl 5): S21-S24.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  23. Millar JA, Lever AF, Burke V. Pulse pressure as a risk factor for cardiovascular events in the MRC Mild Hypertension Trial. J Hypertens 1999; 17: 1065–1072.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  24. Riboli E, Kaaks R. The EPIC Project: Rationale and study design. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26 Suppl 1: S6-S14.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  25. Boeing H, Wahrendorf J, Becker N. EPIC-Germany-A source for studies into diet and risk of chronic diseases. Ann Nutr Metab 1999; 43: 195–204.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  26. Kroke A, Fleischhauer W, Mieke S, et al. Blood pressure measurement in epidemiological studies: A comparative analysis of two methods. Data from the EPIC-Potsdam Study. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 739–746.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  27. Klipstein-Grobusch K, Georg T, Boeing H. Interviewer variability in anthropometric measurements and estimates of body composition. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26: S174-S180.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  28. Guidelines Committee of WHO/ISH Mild Hypertension Liaison Committee. 1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. J Hypertens 1999; 17: 151–183.
    Google Scholar
  29. Subcommittee of WHO/ISH Mild Hypertension Liaison Committee. Summary of 1993 World Health Organisation-International Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of mild hypertension. Br Med J 1993; 307: 1541–1546.
    Google Scholar
  30. MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, Prolonged differences in blood pressure: Prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990; 335: 765–774.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  31. Fogari R, Corradi L, Zoppi A, et al. Repeated office blood pressure controls reduce the prevalence of white-coat hypertension and detect a group of white-coat normotensive patients. Blood Press Monit 1996; 1: 51–54.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  32. Singh HJ, Singh R, Sirisinghe RG, et al. The variability of blood pressure following repeated measurements. Med J Malaysia 1991; 46: 356–362 (Abstract).
    PubMed Google Scholar
  33. Pearce KA, Evans GW, Summerson J, et al. Comparison of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and repeated office measurements in primary care. J Fam Pract 1997; 45: 426–433.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  34. Kochar MS, Itskovitz HD, Panagis C. Hypertension control among patients referred by a community blood pressure screening program. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 493–497.
    PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Arthur-Scheunert-Allee, German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Bergholz-Rehbruecke, Germany
    Matthias B. Schulze, Anja Kroke, Manuela M. Bergmann & Heiner Boeing

Authors

  1. Matthias B. Schulze
  2. Anja Kroke
  3. Manuela M. Bergmann
  4. Heiner Boeing

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schulze, M.B., Kroke, A., Bergmann, M.M. et al. Differences of blood pressure estimates between consecutive measurements on one occasion: Implications for inter-study comparability of epidemiologic studies.Eur J Epidemiol 16, 891–898 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011020823807

Download citation