Home Blood Pressure Measurements Will Not Replace 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (original) (raw)
Related papers
Hypertension, 1999
Previous studies have reported results on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in Europe and Japan, but no data exists from South America. In this study, we conducted a population survey to identify reference values and to compare ambulatory blood pressure with clinic, home, and self-measured values. A random sample of 2650 adults was selected among 190 000 people covered by our prepaid healthcare institution. Clinic (physician and nurse) and home (nurse) blood pressure measurements were performed 3 times each, with semiautomatic electronic equipment. Self-measurements were performed by the subjects manually activating the ambulatory device. We analyzed 1573 individuals who were not receiving antihypertensive therapy from 1921 participants. Self-measurement was available in a subgroup of 577 participants younger than the whole sample. Normal ambulatory blood pressure limits were estimated as those that best correlated with 140/90 mm Hg at clinic. Estimated values were 125/80 mm Hg for 24-hour ambulatory (range: 122 to 128 and 77 to 83 mm Hg) and 129/84 mm Hg for daytime ambulatory (range: 127 to 132 and 81 to 86) blood pressure, depending on gender and age. Ambulatory and clinic blood pressures increased with age. The age-dependent increase in ABP was similar in women and men. Average blood pressure at clinic was 124/79 mm Hg by physician and 123/78 mm Hg by nurse. Nurse measurement at home was 125/78 mm Hg, daytime ambulatory was 121/77 mm Hg, and 24-hour ambulatory was 118/74 mm Hg. The values of the subgroup with self-measurement were physician 119/77 mm Hg; nurse at clinic 118/77 mm Hg; nurse at home 121/78 mm Hg; self-measured 115/72 mm Hg; daytime ambulatory 119/77 mm Hg; and 24-hour ambulatory 115/73 mm Hg. This study shows that a 24-hour ABP average value of 125/80 mm Hg and a daytime ABP average value of 129/84 mm Hg are suitable upper limits for normality. Higher limits would yield an artificially higher prevalence of white coat hypertension. Most subjects showed higher blood pressure levels when measurements were performed by healthcare personnel at a clinic or at home than when self-measured at home.
Circulation, 2005
Background— Studies in hypertensive patients suggest that ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is prognostically superior to office BP. Much less information is available in the general population, however. Obtaining this information was the purpose of the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Methods and Results— Office, home, and 24-hour ambulatory BP values were obtained in 2051 subjects between 25 and 74 years of age who were representative of the general population of Monza (Milan, Italy). Subjects were followed up for an average of 131 months, during which time cardiovascular and noncardiovascular fatal events were recorded (n=186). Office, home, and ambulatory BP values showed a significant exponential direct relationship with risk of cardiovascular or all-cause death. The goodness of fit of the relationship was greater for systolic than for diastolic BP and for night than for day BP, but its overall value was not better for home or ambulatory than for ...
Circulation, 2005
Background-Studies in hypertensive patients suggest that ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is prognostically superior to office BP. Much less information is available in the general population, however. Obtaining this information was the purpose of the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Methods and Results-Office, home, and 24-hour ambulatory BP values were obtained in 2051 subjects between 25 and 74 years of age who were representative of the general population of Monza (Milan, Italy). Subjects were followed up for an average of 131 months, during which time cardiovascular and noncardiovascular fatal events were recorded (nϭ186). Office, home, and ambulatory BP values showed a significant exponential direct relationship with risk of cardiovascular or all-cause death. The goodness of fit of the relationship was greater for systolic than for diastolic BP and for night than for day BP, but its overall value was not better for home or ambulatory than for office BP. The slope of the relationship, however, was progressively greater from office to home and ambulatory BP. Home and night BP modestly improved the goodness of fit of the risk model when added to office BP. Conclusions-In the PAMELA population, risk of death increased more with a given increase in home or ambulatory than in office BP. The overall ability to predict death, however, was not greater for home and ambulatory than for office BP, although it was somewhat increased by the combination of office and outside-of-office values. Systolic BP was almost invariably superior to diastolic BP, and night BP was superior to day BP. (Circulation. 2005;111:1777-1783.)
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring: How Reproducible Is It
American Journal of Hypertension, 1997
We tested the reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) by the use of agreement plots. Thirty-two normotensive volunteers underwent ABPM on four separate days (interval 28 days), on the same typical weekday. Sleeping time was restricted to the ABPM nighttime subperiod from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Twenty-four-hour average values-both systolic and diastolic-daytime average values, and nighttime average values, as well as standard deviation (SD) values, were analyzed for differences (analysis of variance). Adaptation occurred from the first to the fourth ABPM, ie, average 24 h, daytime, and nighttime values were lower (؊1 to ؊3 mm Hg) during the fourth recording than the first (P < .05 to P < .01). The agreement analysis showed a surprisingly high agreement among the four data sets (ie, differences from ؎2.54 to ؎5.92 mm Hg; ؎2 SD of the distribution). We concluded that reproducibility of ABPM seems excellent, but adaptation may occur, even in normotensive volunteers under research conditions. Caution must be paid before labeling a patient as hypertensive, because initial ABPM may yield higher values than later monitorings. Am J Hypertens 1997;10:936 -939
Comparisons of home and daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurements
BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2014
Home (HBPM) and ambulatory (ABPM) blood pressure measurements have their advantages and disadvantages in diagnosing and managing hypertension. We studied HBPMs and ABPMs in volunteers taking part in a survey. Of 366 respondents, 270 provided a total of 5997 triplicate HBPMs (Part 1); 175 also provided data on ABPMs, of which the measurements obtained between 6 am and 10 pm were used in this study (Part 2). Part 1, When all 5997 triplicate HPPMs were considered, 1st readings tended to be significantly higher than those of the 2nd and 3rd for both, systolic and diastolic pressures, but when the consideration was restricted to the very first triplicate of each of the 270 subjects, this was true only for systolic HBPM. Part 2, The ABPMs tended to have a wider range than the corresponding HBPMs, and to be distributed towards higher values. Of the non-parametric indices of (ABPM - corresponding HBPM), (First Quartile, Median, Third Quartile and Maximim) all but the minima had positive val...
American Journal of Hypertension, 2005
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare home and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in the adjustment of antihypertensive treatment. Methods: After a 4-week washout period, patients whose untreated daytime diastolic ambulatory BP averaged Ն85 mm Hg were randomized to be treated according to their ambulatory or home BP. Antihypertensive treatment was adjusted at 6-week intervals according to the mean daytime ambulatory diastolic BP or the mean home diastolic BP, depending on the patient's randomization group. If the diastolic BP stayed above 80 mm Hg, the physician blinded to randomization intensified hypertensive treatment. Results: Ninety-eight patients completed the study. During the 24-week follow-up period both systolic and diastolic BP decreased significantly within both groups (P Ͻ .001). At the end of the study, the systolic/diastolic differences between ambulatory (n ϭ 46) and home (n ϭ 52) BP groups in home, daytime ambulatory, night-time ambulatory, and 24-h ambulatory BP changes averaged 2.6/2.6 mm Hg, 0.6/1.7 mm Hg, 1.0/1.4 mm Hg, and 0.6/1.5 mm Hg, respectively (P range .06 to .75) A nonsignificant trend to more intensive drug therapy in the ambulatory BP group and a nonsignificant trend to larger share of patients reaching (57.7% v 43.5%, P ϭ .16) the target pressure in the home BP group was observed due to the 3.8 mm Hg difference in ambulatory and home diastolic BP at randomization. Conclusions: The adjustment of antihypertensive treatment based on either ambulatory or home BP measurement led to good BP control. No significant betweengroup differences in BP changes were seen at the end of the study. Additional research is needed to provide more conclusive results.