Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Hemodialysis Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study Evaluating Comparability and Tolerability of Blood Pressure Monitoring.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cohen JB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8178468 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May-Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Hemodialysis Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study Evaluating Comparability and Tolerability of Blood Pressure Monitoring.
Cohen Jordana B JB Hsu Chi-Yuan CY Glidden David D Linke Lori L Palad Farshad F Larson Hanna L HL Mehrotra Rajnish R Townsend Raymond R RR Bansal Nisha N
Kidney medicine 20210223 3
Similar Datasets
Project description:Guidelines recommend measuring out-of-clinic blood pressure (BP) to identify masked hypertension (MHT) defined by out-of-clinic BP in the hypertensive range among individuals with clinic-measured BP not in the hypertensive range. The aim of this study was to determine the overlap between ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM) for the detection of MHT. We analyzed data from 333 community-dwelling adults not taking antihypertensive medication with clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg in the IDH study (Improving the Detection of Hypertension). Any MHT was defined by the presence of daytime MHT (mean daytime BP ≥135/85 mm Hg), 24-hour MHT (mean 24-hour BP ≥130/80 mm Hg), or nighttime MHT (mean nighttime BP ≥120/70 mm Hg). Home MHT was defined as mean BP ≥135/85 mm Hg on HBPM. The prevalence of MHT was 25.8% for any MHT and 11.1% for home MHT. Among participants with MHT on either ABPM or HBPM, 29.5% had MHT on both ABPM and HBPM; 61.1% had MHT only on ABPM; and 9.4% of participants had MHT only on HBPM. After multivariable adjustment and compared with participants without MHT on ABPM and HBPM, those with MHT on both ABPM and HBPM and only on ABPM had a higher left ventricular mass index (mean difference [SE], 12.7 [2.9] g/m2, P<0.001; and 4.9 [2.1] g/m2, P=0.022, respectively), whereas participants with MHT only on HBPM did not have an increased left ventricular mass index (mean difference [SE], -1.9 [4.8] g/m2, P=0.693). These data suggest that conducting ABPM will detect many individuals with MHT who have an increased cardiovascular disease risk.
| S-EPMC6207212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is strongly endorsed by contemporary hypertension guidelines. The objective of this study was to assess patient perceptions of ambulatory blood pressure testing, tolerability, accessibility, and expense. A convenience sample of 50, consenting patients undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at the University of Alberta Hypertension Clinic in Edmonton, Canada was studied. A 16-item structured questionnaire was administered in person or electronically. Questions regarding the tolerability of ambulatory monitoring were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale and wait times, expenditures, and willingness to pay were evaluated by direct questioning. Mean age was 53.1 ± 15.4 years, 32 (64%) were female, and 23 (46%) were employed. Mean 24-hour ambulatory BP was 134 ± 12/79 ± 8 mmHg. Ambulatory monitoring caused discomfort in 40 (80%) patients and disturbed sleep in 39 (78%). Forty-one (82%) patients perceived that the home (vs pharmacy, primary care clinic, and speciality care clinic) would be the easiest venue to access future testing. On average, patients waited 27.3 ± 23.7 days for testing; they felt that a wait time of 21.3 ± 12.3 days was appropriate. Mean time taken off work was 8.6 ± 10.8 hours. Twelve (24%) patients indicated that they would be willing to pay out-of-pocket to undergo testing sooner, at a mean expenditure of $120 ± 69. Nineteen (62%) patients were willing to buy a monitor and felt that a mean purchase cost of $125 ± 89 was appropriate. These findings extend current knowledge of patient perceptions of ambulatory monitoring and may help to refine and optimize future delivery of this essential test.
| S-EPMC8029995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared with home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and clinic blood pressure monitoring (CBPM) in diagnosing hypertension in Australia.MethodsA cohort-based Markov model was built from the Payer's perspective (Australian government) comparing lifetime costs and effectiveness of ABPM, HBPM and CBPM in people aged ≥ 35 years with suspected hypertension who have a CBPM between ≥ 140/90 mmHg and ≤ 180/110 mmHg using a sphygmomanometer and have not yet commenced antihypertensive treatment. The main outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) assessing cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-years (LYs) gained by ABPM versus HBPM and CBPM. Cost was measured in Australian dollars (A$).ResultsOver a lifetime model, ABPM had lower total costs (A$8,491) compared with HBPM (A$9,648) and CBPM (A$10,206) per person. ABPM was associated with a small but significant improvement in the quality and quantity of life for people with suspected hypertension with 12.872 QALYs and 17.449 LYs compared with 12.857 QALYs and 17.433 LYs with HBPM, and 12.850 QALYs and 17.425 LYs with CBPM. In the base-case analysis, ABPM dominated HBPM and CBPM. In scenario analyses, at 100% specificity of HBPM, ABPM no longer remained cost effective at a A$50,000/QALY threshold. However, in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, over 10,000 iterations, ABPM remained dominant.ConclusionABPM was the dominant strategy for confirming the diagnosis of hypertension among Australian adults aged ≥ 35 years old with suspected hypertension. The findings of this study are important for reimbursement decision makers to support policy change and for clinicians to make practice changes consistent with ABPM recommendations in primary care.
| S-EPMC9929017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment.Data sourcesMedline (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medion, ARIF, and TRIP up to May 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible studies examined diagnosis of hypertension in adults of all ages using home and/or clinic blood pressure measurement compared with those made using ambulatory monitoring that clearly defined thresholds to diagnose hypertension.ResultsThe 20 eligible studies used various thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension, and only seven studies (clinic) and three studies (home) could be directly compared with ambulatory monitoring. Compared with ambulatory monitoring thresholds of 135/85 mm Hg, clinic measurements over 140/90 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 60.7% to 84.8%) and 74.6% (47.9% to 90.4%), respectively, whereas home measurements over 135/85 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% (78.0% to 91.0%) and 62.4% (48.0% to 75.0%).ConclusionsNeither clinic nor home measurement had sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be recommended as a single diagnostic test. If ambulatory monitoring is taken as the reference standard, then treatment decisions based on clinic or home blood pressure alone might result in substantial overdiagnosis. Ambulatory monitoring before the start of lifelong drug treatment might lead to more appropriate targeting of treatment, particularly around the diagnostic threshold.
| S-EPMC3122300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction2018 ESC/ESH guidelines have recommended 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess hypotensive therapy in many circumstances. Recommended target blood pressure in office blood pressure measurements is between 120/70 and 130/80 mmHg. Such targets for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring lacks.AimWe aimed to define target values of blood pressure in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hypertensive patients.MethodsOffice blood pressure measurements and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring data were collected from 1313 hypertensive patients and sorted following increasing systolic (SBP)/diastolic (DBP) blood pressure in office blood pressure measurements. The corresponding 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to office blood pressure measurements values were calculated.ResultsValues 130/80 mmHg in office blood pressure measurements correspond in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: night-time SBP/DBP mean: 113.74/66.95 mmHg; daytime SBP/DBP mean: 135.02/81.78 mmHg and 24-h SBP/DBP mean: 130.24/78.73 mmHg. Values 120/70 mmHg in office blood pressure measurements correspond in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: night-time SBP/DBP mean: 109.50/63.43 mmHg; daytime SBP/DBP mean: 131.01/78.47 mmHg and 24-h SBP/DBP mean: 126.36/75.31 mmHg.ConclusionsThe proposed blood pressure target values in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring complement the therapeutic target indicated in the ESC/ESH recommendations and improves 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring usefulness in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC9908722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChildren undergoing chronic hemodialysis are at risk of cardiovascular disease and often develop left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is known to better predict cardiovascular morbidity than casual blood pressure (BP) measurement. Given the BP variability attributed to interdialytic fluid overload, 44-h ABPM should better delineate cardiovascular morbidity in pediatric hemodialysis patients.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 17 children (16.7 ± 2.9 years) on chronic hemodialysis underwent 44-h interdialytic ABPM and routine echocardiogram. Left ventricular mass index (LVMI) was calculated by height-based equation; LVH was defined as an LVMI in the ≥95th percentile for height-age and gender. Hypertension was defined by the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program for casual measurements, and by those of the American Heart Association for ABPM.ResultsTwenty-four percentage of patients were hypertensive by casual post-dialytic systolic BP, whereas 59% were hypertensive by ABPM. Eighty-eight percentage of patients had abnormal cardiac geometry: 53% had LVH. Thirty-five percentage (6 of 17) had masked hypertension, including four with abnormal cardiac geometry, of which, three had LVH. LVMI correlated with ABPM, but not with casual measurements. Strongest correlations with an increased LVMI were with 44-h diastolic BP: at night (r = 0.53, P = 0.03) and total load (r = 0.57, P = 0.02). LVH was similarly associated with 44-h nighttime BP: systolic (P = 0.02), diastolic (P = 0.01) and mean arterial (P = 0.01).ConclusionsCasual BP measurement underestimates hypertension in pediatric hemodialysis patients and does not correlate well with indicators of cardiovascular morbidity. In contrast, 44-h interdialytic ABPM better characterizes hypertension, with nighttime parameters most strongly predicting increased LVMI and LVH.
| S-EPMC4389162 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend that patients with newly elevated office blood pressure undergo ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) to rule-out white coat hypertension before being diagnosed with hypertension. We explored patients' perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to undergoing ABPM or HBPM.MethodsFocus groups were conducted with twenty English- and Spanish-speaking individuals from underserved communities in New York City. Two researchers analyzed transcripts using a conventional content analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in ABPM and HBPM.ResultsParticipants described favorable attitudes toward testing including readily understanding white coat hypertension, agreeing with the rationale for out-of-office testing, and believing that testing would benefit patients. Regarding ABPM, participants expressed concerns over the representativeness of the day the test was performed and the intrusiveness of the frequent readings. Regarding HBPM, participants expressed concerns over the validity of the monitoring method and the reliability of home blood pressure devices. For both tests, participants noted that out-of-pocket costs may deter patient participation and felt that patients would require detailed information about the test itself before deciding to participate. Participants overwhelmingly believed that out-of-office testing benefits outweighed testing barriers, were confident that they could successfully complete either testing if recommended by their provider, and described the rationale for their testing preference.ConclusionsParticipants identified dominant barriers and facilitators to ABPM and HBPM testing, articulated testing preferences, and believed that they could successfully complete out-of-office testing if recommended by their provider.
| S-EPMC7190918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hypertension, a common risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is usually diagnosed and treated based on blood pressure readings obtained in the clinic setting. Blood pressure may differ considerably when measured inside versus outside of the clinic setting. Over the past several decades, evidence has accumulated on the following 2 approaches for measuring blood pressure outside of the clinic: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM). Both of these methods have a stronger association with cardiovascular disease outcomes than clinic blood pressure measurement. Controversy exists about whether ABPM or HBPM is superior for estimating risk for cardiovascular disease and under what circumstances these methods should be used in clinical practice for assessing blood pressure outside of the clinic. This review describes ABPM and HBPM procedures, the blood pressure phenotypic measurements that can be ascertained, and the evidence that supports the use of each approach to measuring blood pressure outside of the clinic. It also describes barriers to the successful implementation of ABPM and HBPM in clinical practice, proposes core competencies for the conduct of these procedures, and highlights important areas for future research.
| S-EPMC4638406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe development of automated, smartphone application (app)-assisted home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) allows for standardized measurement of blood pressure (BP) at home. The aim of this study was to evaluate the (diagnostic) agreement between app-assisted HBPM, automated office BP (OBP), and the reference standard 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).MethodsIn this open randomized 5-way cross-over study, patients diagnosed with hypertension were randomized to one of 10 clusters, each containing 5 BP measurement methods (ABPM, HBPM, attended OBP, unattended OBP, and unattended 30-minute BP) in different order.ResultsIn total, 113 patients were included. The average 24-hour ABPM was 126±11/73±8 mm Hg compared with 141±14/82±10 mm Hg with app-assisted HBPM, 134±13/80±9 mm Hg with unattended 30-minute BP, 137±16/81±11 mm Hg with attended OBP, and 135±15/81±10 mm Hg with unattended OBP monitoring. Diagnostic agreement between app-assisted HBPM and 24-hour ABPM for diagnosing sustained (OBP >140/90 mm Hg and ABPM ≥130/80 mm Hg or HBPM ≥135/85 mm Hg), white-coat (OBP ≥140/90 mm Hg and ABPM <130/80 mm Hg or HBPM <135/85 mm Hg), and masked hypertension (OBP <140/90 mm Hg and ABPM ≥130/80 mm Hg or HBPM ≥135/85 mm Hg) was fair-to-moderate (κ statistics ranging from 0.34 to 0.40). App-assisted HBPM had high sensitivities (78%-91%) and negative predictive values (90%-97%) for diagnosing sustained and masked hypertension.ConclusionsThis study showed a considerable (diagnostic) disagreement between app-assisted HBPM and ABPM. App-assisted HBPM had high sensitivity in the diagnosis of sustained and masked hypertension and may therefore be used as complementary to, but not a replacement of, ABPM.
| S-EPMC9444260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although volume excess causes hypertension, whether it also affects circadian patterns of arterial pressures among hemodialysis patients remains unknown. To test the notion of whether volume overload is associated with a unique blood pressure (BP) "signature," a posthoc analysis was performed among 145 patients participating in the Dry-Weight Reduction in Hypertensive Hemodialysis Patients randomized, controlled trial. Using 400 ambulatory BP recordings over 8 weeks composed of 35 302 measurements, the trended cosinor model was found to be the best descriptor of BP chronobiology. The trended cosinor model may be described as a pattern of sinusoidal oscillation around a straight line with an upward trend during the interdialytic period that has an intercept at the postdialysis time. Augmented volume removal therapy reduced the intercept systolic BP and increased the rate of rise in systolic BP over the interdialytic interval but had no effect on the systolic BP fluctuation (amplitude). Thus, an elevated intercept and blunted slope pattern characterize the "volume-overload BP pattern" on ambulatory BP monitoring. Similar changes were seen for diastolic BP. Augmented volume removal therapy neither restored dipping nor was associated with a lag phenomenon for either the wake or the sleep systolic BP. Lowering of systolic BP was greater than diastolic BP such that pulse pressure was reduced. An observational cohort of 37 patients followed for 6 months confirmed these findings. Randomized trials are now needed to evaluate the clinical impact of augmented volume removal therapy on hard outcomes, because reduction of pulse pressure with this simple expedient has the potential to improve survival in hemodialysis patients.
| S-EPMC2745712 | biostudies-literature