Studies comparing ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure on cardiovascular disease and mortality outcomes: a systematic review.
ABSTRACT: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is more commonly recommended for assessing out-of-clinic blood pressure (BP) than home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM). We conducted a systematic review to examine whether ABPM or HBPM is more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease events and/or mortality. Of 1007 abstracts published through July 20, 2015, nine articles, reporting results from seven cohorts, were identified. After adjustment for BP on HBPM, BP on ABPM was associated with an increased risk of outcomes in two of four cohorts for systolic blood pressure and two of three cohorts for diastolic blood pressure. After adjustment for BP on ABPM, systolic blood pressure on HBPM was associated with outcomes in zero of three cohorts; an association was present in one of two cohorts for diastolic blood pressure on HBPM. There is a lack of strong empiric evidence supporting ABPM or HBPM over the other approach for predicting cardiovascular events or mortality.
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.
Project description:Repeated exposure to household air pollution may intermittently raise blood pressure (BP) and affect cardiovascular outcomes. We investigated whether hourly carbon monoxide (CO) exposures were associated with acute increases in ambulatory blood pressure (ABP); and secondarily, if switching to an improved cookstove was associated with BP changes. We also evaluated the feasibility of using 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in a cohort of pregnant women in Ghana.Participants were 44 women enrolled in the Ghana Randomized Air Pollution and Health Study (GRAPHS). For 27 of the women, BP was measured using 24-h ABPM; home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) was used to measure BP in the remaining 17 women. Personal CO exposure monitoring was conducted alongside the BP monitoring.ABPM revealed that peak CO exposure (defined as ?4.1 ppm) in the 2 hours prior to BP measurement was associated with elevations in hourly systolic BP (4.3 mmHg [95% CI: 1.1, 7.4]) and diastolic BP (4.5 mmHg [95% CI: 1.9, 7.2]), as compared to BP following lower CO exposures. Women receiving improved cookstoves had lower post-intervention SBP (within-subject change in SBP of -2.1 mmHg [95% CI: -6.6, 2.4] as compared to control), though this result did not reach statistical significance. 98.1% of expected 24-h ABPM sessions were successfully completed, with 92.5% of them valid according to internationally defined criteria.We demonstrate an association between acute exposure to carbon monoxide and transient increases in BP in a West African setting. ABPM shows promise as an outcome measure for assessing cardiovascular health benefits of cookstove interventions.The GRAPHS trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov on 13 April 2011 with the identifier NCT01335490 .
Project description:BACKGROUND:The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BPs) before making a new diagnosis of hypertension, using 24-h ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM), however this is not common in routine clinical practice. Blood Pressure Checks and Diagnosing Hypertension (BP-CHECK) is a randomized controlled diagnostic study assessing the comparability and acceptability of clinic, home, and kiosk-based BP monitoring to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Stakeholders including patients, providers, policy makers, and researchers informed the study design and protocols. METHODS:Adults aged 18-85 without diagnosed hypertension and on no hypertension medication with elevated BPs in clinic and at the baseline research visit are randomized to one of 3 regimens for diagnosing hypertension: (1) clinic BPs, (2) home BPs, or (3) kiosk BPs; all participants subsequently complete ABPM. The primary outcomes are the comparability (with daytime ABPM mean systolic and diastolic BP as the reference standard) and acceptability (e.g., adherence to, patient-reported outcomes) of each method compared to ABPM. Longer-term outcomes are assessed at 6-months including: patient-reported outcomes, primary care providers' diagnosis of hypertension; and BP control. We report challenges experienced and our response to these. RESULTS:Enrollment began in May of 2017 with a target of randomizing 510 participants. BP thresholds for diagnosing hypertension in the US changed after the trial started. We discuss the stakeholder process used to assess and respond to these changes. CONCLUSION AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT:BP-CHECK will inform which hypertension diagnostic methods are most accurate, acceptable, and feasible to implement in primary care.
Project description:Importance:The clinical outcomes associated with masked hypertension defined by home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) in clinical settings remain uncertain. Objective:To assess the association between masked hypertension and cardiovascular disease events in clinical settings. Design, Setting, and Participants:This observational cohort study used data from 4261 outpatients treated at 71 primary practices or university hospitals throughout Japan who were enrolled in the Japan Morning Surge-Home Blood Pressure study between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2012. Participants had a history of or risk factors for cardiovascular disease and were followed up through March 31, 2015. Participants underwent clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements on 2 occasions as well as HBPM measurements in the morning and evening for a 14-day period. Urine albumin to creatinine ratio and circulating brain (or B-type) natriuretic peptide levels were quantified at baseline as a marker of cardiovascular end-organ damage. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2017, to October 31, 2017. Exposures:Participants were categorized into 4 BP groups: (1) masked hypertension-hypertensive home BP levels (systolic, ≥135 mm Hg; diastolic, ≥85 mm Hg) and nonhypertensive clinic BP levels (systolic, <140 mm Hg; diastolic, <90 mm Hg); (2) white-coat hypertension-nonhypertensive home BP levels (systolic, <135 mm Hg; diastolic, <85 mm Hg) and hypertensive clinic BP levels (systolic, ≥140 mm Hg; diastolic, ≥90 mm Hg); (3) sustained hypertension-hypertensive home and clinic BP levels; and (4) controlled BP-nonhypertensive home and clinic BP levels. Main Outcomes and Measures:Incident stroke and coronary heart disease. Results:Of the 4261 participants, 2266 (53.2%) were women, 3374 (79.2%) were taking antihypertensive medication, and the mean (SD) age was 64.9 (10.9) years. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.9 (2.4-4.6) years, 74 stroke (4.4 per 1000 person-years) and 77 coronary heart disease (4.6 per 1000 person-years) events occurred. The masked hypertension group had a greater risk for stroke compared with the controlled BP group (hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.20-6.37), independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, urine albumin to creatinine ratio, and circulating B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Conversely, masked hypertension yielded no association with coronary heart disease risk. Conclusions and Relevance:In the Japanese general practice population, masked hypertension defined by HBPM may be associated with an increased risk for stroke events. Use of HBPM may improve the assessment of BP-related risks and identify new therapeutic interventions aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease events.
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.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is the gold standard diagnostic method for hypertension, but has some shortcomings in clinical practice while clinical settings often lack sufficient devices to accommodate all patients with suspected hypertension. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) also have shortcomings, such as the white coat effect or a lack of accuracy. This study aims to study the validity of a new method of diagnosing hypertension consisting of monitoring blood pressure (BP) for 1?hour and comparing it with OBPM and HBPM and examining the sensitivity and specificity of this method compared with 24-hour ABPM. The patient experience will be examined in each method. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A minimum sample of 214 patients requiring a diagnostic test for hypertension from three urban primary healthcare centres will be included. Participants will undergo 24-hour ABPM, 1-hour BP measurement (1-BPM), OBPM for three consecutive weeks and HBPM. Patients will follow a random sequence to first receive 24-hour ABPM or 1-hour ABPM. Daytime 24-hour ABPM records will be compared with the other monitoring methods using the correlation coefficient and Bland Altman plots. The kappa concordance index and the sensitivity and specificity of the methods will be calculated. The patient's experience will be studied, with selected indicators of efficiency and satisfaction calculated using parametric tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol has been authorised by the research ethics committee of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona (Ref. HCB/2014/0615): protocol details and amendments will be recorded and reported to ClinicalTrials.com. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed literature, and to policy makers and healthcare partners. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03147573; Pre-results.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Children 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.<h4>Methods</h4>In 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.<h4>Results</h4>Twenty-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).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Casual 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.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Abnormal diurnal blood pressure (BP) rhythms may contribute to the high cardiovascular disease risk in HIV-positive (HIV+) individuals. To synthesize the current literature on ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in HIV+ individuals, a systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed. METHODS:Medical databases were searched through November 11, 2015 for studies that reported ABPM results in HIV+ individuals. Data were extracted by 2 reviewers and pooled differences between HIV+ and HIV-negative (HIV-) individuals in clinic BP and ABPM measures were calculated using random-effects inverse variance weighted models. RESULTS:Of 597 abstracts reviewed, 8 studies with HIV+ cohorts met the inclusion criteria. The 420 HIV+ and 714 HIV- individuals in 7 studies with HIV- comparison groups were pooled for analyses. The pooled absolute nocturnal systolic and diastolic BP declines were 3.16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13%, 5.20%) and 2.92% (95% CI: 1.64%, 4.19%) less, respectively, in HIV+ versus HIV- individuals. The pooled odds ratio for non-dipping systolic BP (nocturnal systolic BP decline <10%) in HIV+ versus HIV- individuals was 2.72 (95% CI: 1.92, 3.85). Differences in mean clinic, 24-hour, daytime, or nighttime BP were not statistically significant. I2 and heterogeneity chi-squared statistics indicated the presence of high heterogeneity for all outcomes except percent DBP dipping and non-dipping SBP pattern. CONCLUSIONS:An abnormal diurnal BP pattern may be more common among HIV+ versus HIV- individuals. However, results were heterogeneous for most BP measures, suggesting more research in this area is needed.
Project description:Blood pressure (BP) can differ substantially when measured in the clinic versus outside of the clinic setting. Few population-based studies with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) include African Americans. We calculated the prevalence of clinic hypertension and ABPM phenotypes among 1016 participants in the population-based Jackson Heart Study, an exclusively African-American cohort. Mean daytime systolic BP was higher than mean clinic systolic BP among participants not taking antihypertensive medication (127.1[standard deviation 12.8] vs. 124.5[15.7] mm Hg, respectively) and taking antihypertensive medication (131.2[13.6] vs. 130.0[15.6] mm Hg, respectively). Mean daytime diastolic BP was higher than clinic diastolic BP among participants not taking antihypertensive medication (78.2[standard deviation 8.9] vs. 74.6[8.4] mm Hg, respectively) and taking antihypertensive medication (77.6[9.4] vs. 74.3[8.5] mm Hg, respectively). The prevalence of daytime hypertension was higher than clinic hypertension for participants not taking antihypertensive medication (31.8% vs. 14.3%) and taking antihypertensive medication (43.0% vs. 23.1%). A high percentage of participants not taking and taking antihypertensive medication had nocturnal hypertension (49.4% and 61.7%, respectively), white-coat hypertension (30.2% and 29.3%, respectively), masked hypertension (25.4% and 34.6%, respectively), and a nondipping BP pattern (62.4% and 69.6%, respectively). In conclusion, these data suggest hypertension may be misdiagnosed among African Americans without using ABPM.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines 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. METHODS:Focus 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. RESULTS:Participants 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. CONCLUSIONS:Participants 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.