Clinical Impact of 3- versus 5-Minute Delay and 30- versus 60-Second Intervals on Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
E E Lynn-Green, J L Cluett, R A Turkson-Ocran, K J Mukamal, J X Li, S P Juraschek
{"title":"Clinical Impact of 3- versus 5-Minute Delay and 30- versus 60-Second Intervals on Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements.","authors":"E E Lynn-Green, J L Cluett, R A Turkson-Ocran, K J Mukamal, J X Li, S P Juraschek","doi":"10.1093/ajh/hpae135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines advise automated office blood pressure (AOBP) with an initial 5-minute delay and multiple measurements at least 60 seconds apart. Recent studies suggest that AOBP may be accurate with shorter delays or intervals, but evidence in clinical settings is limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients referred to one hypertension (HTN) center underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and one of four non-randomized, unattended AOBP protocols: a 3- or 5-minute delay with a 30 or 60-second interval, i.e., 3 min/30 sec/30 sec, 3/60/60, 5/30/30 and 5/60/60 protocols. HTN was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We compared differences in mean blood pressure and HTN classification between average AOBP and awake-time ABPM by t-tests and Fisher's exact test. Among 212 participants (mean 58.9 years, 61% women, 25% Black), there was substantial overlap in the probability distributions of awake-time ABPM and each of the three AOBP measures. Systolic blood pressure means were similar between the 5/60/60 and 3/30/30 protocols and 5/30/30 and 3/60/60 protocols. The 5/30/30 was associated with a higher proportion of systolic HTN, while the 3/60/60 protocol was associated with a higher proportion of diastolic HTN. There were no significant differences in systolic or diastolic HTN between 5/60/60 and 3/30/30 protocols with respect to awake-time ABPM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this quality improvement study, the shortest AOBP protocol did not differ significantly from the longest protocol. The time savings of shorter protocols may improve AOBP adoption in clinical practice without meaningfully compromising accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7578,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hypertension","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpae135","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Guidelines advise automated office blood pressure (AOBP) with an initial 5-minute delay and multiple measurements at least 60 seconds apart. Recent studies suggest that AOBP may be accurate with shorter delays or intervals, but evidence in clinical settings is limited.

Methods: Patients referred to one hypertension (HTN) center underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and one of four non-randomized, unattended AOBP protocols: a 3- or 5-minute delay with a 30 or 60-second interval, i.e., 3 min/30 sec/30 sec, 3/60/60, 5/30/30 and 5/60/60 protocols. HTN was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg.

Results: We compared differences in mean blood pressure and HTN classification between average AOBP and awake-time ABPM by t-tests and Fisher's exact test. Among 212 participants (mean 58.9 years, 61% women, 25% Black), there was substantial overlap in the probability distributions of awake-time ABPM and each of the three AOBP measures. Systolic blood pressure means were similar between the 5/60/60 and 3/30/30 protocols and 5/30/30 and 3/60/60 protocols. The 5/30/30 was associated with a higher proportion of systolic HTN, while the 3/60/60 protocol was associated with a higher proportion of diastolic HTN. There were no significant differences in systolic or diastolic HTN between 5/60/60 and 3/30/30 protocols with respect to awake-time ABPM.

Conclusions: In this quality improvement study, the shortest AOBP protocol did not differ significantly from the longest protocol. The time savings of shorter protocols may improve AOBP adoption in clinical practice without meaningfully compromising accuracy.

3 分钟与 5 分钟延迟以及 30 秒与 60 秒间隔对无人值守办公室自动血压测量的临床影响。
背景:指南建议办公室自动血压计(AOBP)初始延迟 5 分钟,多次测量间隔至少 60 秒。最近的研究表明,如果延迟时间或间隔时间更短,AOBP 可能会更准确,但在临床环境中的证据有限:转诊到一家高血压(HTN)中心的患者接受了 24 小时动态血压监测(ABPM)和四种非随机、无人值守 AOBP 方案之一:延迟 3 或 5 分钟,间隔 30 或 60 秒,即 3 分钟/30 秒/30 秒、3/60/60、5/30/30 和 5/60/60 方案。高血压定义为收缩压≥140 或舒张压≥90 mmHg:我们通过 t 检验和费舍尔精确检验比较了平均 AOBP 和清醒时 ABPM 在平均血压和 HTN 分类方面的差异。在 212 名参与者(平均 58.9 岁,61% 为女性,25% 为黑人)中,清醒时 ABPM 和三种 AOBP 测量的概率分布有很大的重叠。5/60/60 和 3/30/30 方案以及 5/30/30 和 3/60/60 方案的收缩压平均值相似。5/30/30 方案与较高比例的收缩性高血压相关,而 3/60/60 方案与较高比例的舒张性高血压相关。就清醒时间 ABPM 而言,5/60/60 和 3/30/30 方案在收缩性或舒张性高血压方面没有明显差异:在这项质量改进研究中,最短的 AOBP 方案与最长的方案没有明显差异。较短方案节省的时间可能会在临床实践中提高无创血压计的采用率,而不会明显影响准确性。
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
American Journal of Hypertension
American Journal of Hypertension 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
144
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Hypertension is a monthly, peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for scientific inquiry of the highest standards in the field of hypertension and related cardiovascular disease. The journal publishes high-quality original research and review articles on basic sciences, molecular biology, clinical and experimental hypertension, cardiology, epidemiology, pediatric hypertension, endocrinology, neurophysiology, and nephrology.
×
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