Automated office BP measurement: The new standard in HTN screening

,; ,; ,

doi:10.12788/jfp.0188

PURLs

Automated office BP measurement: The new standard in HTN screening

J Fam Pract. 2021 May;70(4):194-196 | 10.12788/jfp.0188

PDF Download

References

1. Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J, Myers MG. Comparing automated office blood pressure readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement for identifying patients with possible hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179:351-362.

2. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2018;71:e13-e115. Published correction appears in Hypertension. 2018;71:e140-e144.

3. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311:507-520. Published correction appears in JAMA. 2014;311:1809.

4. Fryar CD, Ostchega Y, Hales CM, et al. Hypertension prevalence and control among adults: United States, 2015-2016. NCHS Data Brief. 2017;(289):1-8.

5. GBD 2017 Risk Factor Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392:1923-1994.

6. Kirkland EB, Heincelman M, Bishu KG, et al. Trends in healthcare expenditures among US adults with hypertension: national estimates, 2003-2014. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e008731.

7. Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research. Circulation. 2005;111:697-716.

8. Ogedegbe G, Pickering T. Principles and techniques of blood pressure measurement. Cardiol Clin. 2010;28:571-586.

9. Pappaccogli M, Di Monaco S, Perlo E, et al. Comparison of automated office blood pressure with office and out-of-office measurement techniques. Hypertension. 2019;73:481-490.

10. Reeves RA. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have hypertension? How to measure blood pressure. JAMA. 1995;273:1211-1218.

11. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Use of automated office blood pressure measurement to reduce the white coat response. J Hypertens. 2009;27:280-286.

12. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Decision memo for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) (CAG-00067R2). July 2, 2019. Accessed September 29, 2020. www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=294

STUDY SUMMARY

Automated office BP devices are just as accurate as more expensive ABP studies

This systematic review and meta-analysis (N = 9279; 23 cross-sectional, 1 cohort, and 7 randomized controlled trials [N = 1304], of which 17 studies overlapped with those included in the previously mentioned meta-analysis⁹) compared SBP and diastolic blood pressure measured by an oscillometric AOBP device to awake or daytime ABP (continuously monitoring BP while awake, used as a standard for BP measurement), routine manual office BP, or research BP measurements.

The study also explored the protocol by which the best AOBP results could be obtained. For AOBP measurement, the included trials had no more than 2 minutes of elapsed time between individual AOBP measurements and had at least 3 AOBP readings to calculate the mean.

Compared with AOBP, in samples with an SBP of ≥ 130 mm Hg, SBP readings were significantly higher for both routine office visits (mean difference [MD] = 14.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 11.8–17.2) and research (MD = 7 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.9–9.1). However, no difference was found between AOBP and awake ambulatory SBP values (MD = 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.1 to 1.7). In all cases, heterogeneity of the included studies was high (I² was > 75%). There was no evidence of small-study effect or publication bias, and little evidence of potential financial bias. The most accurate methodology for AOBP measurements included multiple BP readings and the patient resting alone in a quiet location.

This meta-analysis supports the use of an automated office blood pressure device to accurately screen for hypertension and avoid the white-coat effect.

Although there was statistical heterogeneity, the results were confirmed in the authors’ analysis of studies with high methodologic quality. In addition, researchers performed multiple meta-regression analyses to evaluate the statistical heterogeneity and found no significant differences based on age, body mass index, number of treated patients, gender, measurement interval, or added rest before AOBP.

WHAT'S NEW

Study confirms unattended, automated office BP as preferred technique

This is the second recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to directly compare AOBP with other common techniques of BP measurement in screening for and diagnosing hypertension in the clinical setting. ⁹

Continue to: This meta-analysis...