Blood pressure response to close or loose contact between physician and patient during attended office blood pressure measurement
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00669806%3A_____%2F22%3A10445860" target="_blank" >RIV/00669806:_____/22:10445860 - isvavai.cz</a>
Alternative codes found
RIV/00216208:11140/22:10445860
Result on the web
<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Nt9cwDs~DB" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Nt9cwDs~DB</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08037051.2022.2104694" target="_blank" >10.1080/08037051.2022.2104694</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Blood pressure response to close or loose contact between physician and patient during attended office blood pressure measurement
Original language description
Purpose Compared to unattended office blood pressure (uOBP), attended office blood pressure (aOBP) is higher. It is not known, however, to what extent distance between physician and patient influences blood pressure (BP) values. Materials and methods Participants were stable hypertensive patients, followed in the university hospital-based out-patient center. During a session, automated office BP was measured three times after a pre-set five-minute pause, using the Omron 907 device; both aOBP and uOBP were done, in a random order. Simultaneously, beat-to-beat BP measurement was performed using the Finapress device. During aOBP, some participants were in close contact with the physician while others were in loose contact where the doctor was sitting in the room about 2.5 m apart. One year later, the second session with the same protocol was organized, but the close and loose contact were interchanged. The data were analyzed using a paired t-test. Results Complete data were collected in 32 patients, baseline uOBP was 122.8 +/- 14.8/69.5 +/- 11.7 mmHg. Systolic and diastolic aOBP with close contact was higher by 4.6 +/- 6.9 and 1.9 +/- 3.4 mmHg (p < 0.0007 and 0.0039, respectively), while aOBP with loose contact was not different from uOBP. Beat-to-beat BP increased during aOBP by 6.5 +/- 8.5/3.3 +/- 4.8 mmHg. The increase persisted during all the three aOBP measurements (p < 0.0001 for all systolic and diastolic BP values); the results were similar for close and loose contact. The peak increase during uOBP was of similar magnitude as during aOBP but it lasted shorter: it reached the significance level of p < 0.0001 only during the first uOBP measurement. Conclusions Compared to uOBP, aOBP values were higher with close, but not with loose contact between physician and patient. These differences were, however, not detected by beat-to-beat BP measurement.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Others
Publication year
2022
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Blood Pressure
ISSN
0803-7051
e-ISSN
1651-1999
Volume of the periodical
31
Issue of the periodical within the volume
1
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
6
Pages from-to
194-199
UT code for WoS article
000833786300001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85135152237