Unattended versus conventional blood pressure measurements in hospitalized hypertensive patients.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Zhe Hu, Rui Chu, Yang Gao, Xin Chen, Chang-Sheng Sheng
{"title":"Unattended versus conventional blood pressure measurements in hospitalized hypertensive patients.","authors":"Zhe Hu, Rui Chu, Yang Gao, Xin Chen, Chang-Sheng Sheng","doi":"10.1097/MBP.0000000000000727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to compare the differences between unattended and conventional blood pressure measurements in hospitalized hypertensive patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In fall of 2019, hypertensive patients at Ruijin Hospital underwent two rounds of unattended and conventional (nurse-monitored) blood pressure measurement. Both rounds used the same electronic blood pressure monitor with measurements taken three times, 30 s apart. Comparison was made using intra-class correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, paired t-tests, etc.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 92 subjects in the study, the median age was 50 years old, with women accounting for 33.7%. Among the subjects, the median duration of hypertension was 8.0 years. The prevalence of diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke were 26.1%, 5.4%, and 6.5%, respectively. Whether unattended or conventional measurements were taken first, the average blood pressure measured first was slightly higher than the one measured later, but the difference was within 1-2 mmHg. Except that the average DBP during the round of conventional blood pressure measurements was significantly reduced by 1.6 mmHg compared to the conventional DBP, there were no other significant differences. Subgroup analysis by age, gender, BMI, and diabetes showed no significant difference in blood pressure measurement results between unattended and conventional methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No significant difference was observed between unattended and conventional methods of blood pressure measurement in hospitalized hypertensive patients. Unattended blood pressure measurement can be adopted as the current standard for blood pressure management in hospitalized patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":8950,"journal":{"name":"Blood Pressure Monitoring","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Pressure Monitoring","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0000000000000727","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aims to compare the differences between unattended and conventional blood pressure measurements in hospitalized hypertensive patients.

Methods: In fall of 2019, hypertensive patients at Ruijin Hospital underwent two rounds of unattended and conventional (nurse-monitored) blood pressure measurement. Both rounds used the same electronic blood pressure monitor with measurements taken three times, 30 s apart. Comparison was made using intra-class correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, paired t-tests, etc.

Results: Among the 92 subjects in the study, the median age was 50 years old, with women accounting for 33.7%. Among the subjects, the median duration of hypertension was 8.0 years. The prevalence of diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke were 26.1%, 5.4%, and 6.5%, respectively. Whether unattended or conventional measurements were taken first, the average blood pressure measured first was slightly higher than the one measured later, but the difference was within 1-2 mmHg. Except that the average DBP during the round of conventional blood pressure measurements was significantly reduced by 1.6 mmHg compared to the conventional DBP, there were no other significant differences. Subgroup analysis by age, gender, BMI, and diabetes showed no significant difference in blood pressure measurement results between unattended and conventional methods.

Conclusion: No significant difference was observed between unattended and conventional methods of blood pressure measurement in hospitalized hypertensive patients. Unattended blood pressure measurement can be adopted as the current standard for blood pressure management in hospitalized patients.

住院高血压患者的无人值守血压测量与常规血压测量的比较。
背景:本研究旨在比较住院高血压患者的无人值守和常规血压测量之间的差异:本研究旨在比较住院高血压患者无人值守血压测量与常规血压测量之间的差异:2019年秋季,瑞金医院的高血压患者接受了两轮无人值守和常规(护士监测)血压测量。两轮测量均使用相同的电子血压计,测量三次,每次间隔 30 秒。采用类内相关系数、Bland-Altman 图、配对 t 检验等方法进行比较:在 92 名研究对象中,年龄中位数为 50 岁,女性占 33.7%。研究对象中,高血压病程的中位数为 8.0 年。糖尿病、冠心病和中风的发病率分别为 26.1%、5.4% 和 6.5%。无论是先进行无人值守测量还是先进行常规测量,先测量的平均血压都略高于后测量的平均血压,但差异在 1-2 mmHg 之间。除了一轮常规血压测量的平均 DBP 比常规 DBP 明显降低 1.6 mmHg 外,没有其他显著差异。按年龄、性别、体重指数和糖尿病进行的分组分析表明,无人值守和传统方法的血压测量结果无明显差异:结论:在住院的高血压患者中,无人值守血压测量方法与传统方法没有明显差异。无人值守血压测量可作为住院患者血压管理的现行标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Blood Pressure Monitoring
Blood Pressure Monitoring 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
110
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Blood Pressure Monitoring is devoted to original research in blood pressure measurement and blood pressure variability. It includes device technology, analytical methodology of blood pressure over time and its variability, clinical trials - including, but not limited to, pharmacology - involving blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure reactivity, patient evaluation, and outcomes and effectiveness research. This innovative journal contains papers dealing with all aspects of manual, automated, and ambulatory monitoring. Basic and clinical science papers are considered although the emphasis is on clinical medicine. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信