Comparison of three office blood pressure measurement techniques and their effect on hypertension prevalence in the general population

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11140%2F20%3A10410687" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11140/20:10410687 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00669806:_____/20:10410687 RIV/00064190:_____/20:N0000018 RIV/00216208:11110/20:10410687

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=2MUfRyUnta" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=2MUfRyUnta</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000002322" target="_blank" >10.1097/HJH.0000000000002322</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of three office blood pressure measurement techniques and their effect on hypertension prevalence in the general population

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objectives: There is an ongoing controversy about the magnitude of the difference between unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) and conventional office blood pressure (BP). The aim of our study was to compare unattended AOBP with both auscultatory BP and oscillometric attended AOBP in an epidemiological setting. Methods: In 2588 participants of the Czech post-MoNItoring of CArdiovascular Disease study (a randomly selected 1% representative population sample aged 25-64 years, mean age 48 +/- 11 years, 47.5% males), BP was measured using an AOBP device unattended, auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer and an oscillometric attended AOBP device. Results: On average, auscultatory BP was 10.6/5.6 mmHg higher than unattended AOBP. Similarly, oscillometric attended AOBP was 9.9/3.4 mmHg higher than unattended AOBP, while the mean difference between attended oscillometric AOBP and auscultatory BP was 0.8/2.1 mmHg. Unattended systolic AOBP of 127 mmHg corresponded to SBP of 140 mmHg measured by a conventional sphygmomanometer. The prevalence of hypertension varied depending on the measurement technique and ranged from 31.5 to 40.1%. Reasonable agreement in hypertension diagnosis was observed with unattended AOBP cut-off at least 130/85 mmHg when compared with both auscultatory (McNemar P = 0.07, kappa 0.819) and attended oscillometric AOBP (McNemar P = 0.46, kappa 0.852) thresholds of at least 140/90 mmHg. Conclusion: Unattended automated office SBP is on average 10 mmHg lower than the office auscultatory or attended AOBP values. In epidemiological settings, a threshold of unattended AOBP at least 130/85 mmHg should make comparison of hypertension prevalence possible with studies using auscultatory techniques and cut-off values of 140/90 mmHg.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of three office blood pressure measurement techniques and their effect on hypertension prevalence in the general population

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objectives: There is an ongoing controversy about the magnitude of the difference between unattended automated office blood pressure (AOBP) and conventional office blood pressure (BP). The aim of our study was to compare unattended AOBP with both auscultatory BP and oscillometric attended AOBP in an epidemiological setting. Methods: In 2588 participants of the Czech post-MoNItoring of CArdiovascular Disease study (a randomly selected 1% representative population sample aged 25-64 years, mean age 48 +/- 11 years, 47.5% males), BP was measured using an AOBP device unattended, auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer and an oscillometric attended AOBP device. Results: On average, auscultatory BP was 10.6/5.6 mmHg higher than unattended AOBP. Similarly, oscillometric attended AOBP was 9.9/3.4 mmHg higher than unattended AOBP, while the mean difference between attended oscillometric AOBP and auscultatory BP was 0.8/2.1 mmHg. Unattended systolic AOBP of 127 mmHg corresponded to SBP of 140 mmHg measured by a conventional sphygmomanometer. The prevalence of hypertension varied depending on the measurement technique and ranged from 31.5 to 40.1%. Reasonable agreement in hypertension diagnosis was observed with unattended AOBP cut-off at least 130/85 mmHg when compared with both auscultatory (McNemar P = 0.07, kappa 0.819) and attended oscillometric AOBP (McNemar P = 0.46, kappa 0.852) thresholds of at least 140/90 mmHg. Conclusion: Unattended automated office SBP is on average 10 mmHg lower than the office auscultatory or attended AOBP values. In epidemiological settings, a threshold of unattended AOBP at least 130/85 mmHg should make comparison of hypertension prevalence possible with studies using auscultatory techniques and cut-off values of 140/90 mmHg.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/NV15-27109A" target="_blank" >NV15-27109A: Dlouhodobé trendy hlavních kardiovaskulárních rizikových faktorů a jejich prediktivní hodnota v náhodně vybraném populačním vzorku, Czech post-MONICA</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Hypertension

ISSN

0263-6352

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

38

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

656-662

Kód UT WoS článku

000524501000016

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85080131304