Agreement between resting heart rate measured by unattended automated office and office blood pressure measurement, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, or electrocardiography.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Piotr Sobieraj, Mateusz Leśniewski, Agnieszka Sawicka, Maciej Siński, Jacek Lewandowski
{"title":"Agreement between resting heart rate measured by unattended automated office and office blood pressure measurement, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, or electrocardiography.","authors":"Piotr Sobieraj, Mateusz Leśniewski, Agnieszka Sawicka, Maciej Siński, Jacek Lewandowski","doi":"10.1111/jch.14892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The application of unattended blood pressure measurement (uAOBPM) for resting heart rate (RHR) assessment is unknown. To assess the agreement between RHR measured during uAOBPM and other methods, the authors conducted a comparability study with office blood pressure measurement (OBPM), ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and electrocardiogram (ECG) in a group of 110 participants referred for ABPM. RHR measured with uAOBPM (70.8 ± 12.5 bpm) was significantly lower than OBPM (72.8 ± 12.6 bpm) but higher than measured by 24 h ABPM (67.5 ± 10.2 bpm). There was no significant difference was found between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (70.3 ± 11.2 bpm) or ECG (69.1 ± 11.6 bpm). Using Bland-Altman statistics, the authors discovered a small difference in agreement between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (bias: 0.4 with 95% confidence interval: -0.8 to 1.6 bpm), with a poorer agreement with OBPM (bias -2 with 95% confidence interval: -2.8 to -1.3 bpm) and ECG (bias 1.6 with 95% confidence interval: 0.5 to 2.7 bpm). The authors found significant agreement between uAOBPM and ECG in identifying subjects with RHR > 80 bpm OBPM, with Cohen's kappa coefficients of 0.783 and 0.671, respectively. Their findings indicate that RHR measured with uAOBPM remains in acceptable agreement with OBPM, ABPM, and ECG, the best agreement obtained with RHR from daytime ABPM.</p>","PeriodicalId":50237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.14892","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

The application of unattended blood pressure measurement (uAOBPM) for resting heart rate (RHR) assessment is unknown. To assess the agreement between RHR measured during uAOBPM and other methods, the authors conducted a comparability study with office blood pressure measurement (OBPM), ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and electrocardiogram (ECG) in a group of 110 participants referred for ABPM. RHR measured with uAOBPM (70.8 ± 12.5 bpm) was significantly lower than OBPM (72.8 ± 12.6 bpm) but higher than measured by 24 h ABPM (67.5 ± 10.2 bpm). There was no significant difference was found between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (70.3 ± 11.2 bpm) or ECG (69.1 ± 11.6 bpm). Using Bland-Altman statistics, the authors discovered a small difference in agreement between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (bias: 0.4 with 95% confidence interval: -0.8 to 1.6 bpm), with a poorer agreement with OBPM (bias -2 with 95% confidence interval: -2.8 to -1.3 bpm) and ECG (bias 1.6 with 95% confidence interval: 0.5 to 2.7 bpm). The authors found significant agreement between uAOBPM and ECG in identifying subjects with RHR > 80 bpm OBPM, with Cohen's kappa coefficients of 0.783 and 0.671, respectively. Their findings indicate that RHR measured with uAOBPM remains in acceptable agreement with OBPM, ABPM, and ECG, the best agreement obtained with RHR from daytime ABPM.

通过无人值守自动办公室和办公室血压测量、流动血压监测或心电图测量的静息心率之间的一致性。
无人值守血压测量(uAOBPM)在静息心率(RHR)评估中的应用尚不清楚。为了评估 uAOBPM 测量的 RHR 与其他方法之间的一致性,作者对一组 110 名转诊接受 ABPM 的参与者进行了一项与诊室血压测量 (OBPM)、非卧床血压监测 (ABPM) 和心电图 (ECG) 的可比性研究。使用 uAOBPM 测得的 RHR(70.8 ± 12.5 bpm)明显低于 OBPM(72.8 ± 12.6 bpm),但高于 24 小时 ABPM 测得的 RHR(67.5 ± 10.2 bpm)。通过 uAOBPM 测得的 RHR 与日间 ABPM(70.3 ± 11.2 bpm)或心电图(69.1 ± 11.6 bpm)之间无明显差异。通过使用 Bland-Altman 统计法,作者发现 uAOBPM 和日间 ABPM 测量的 RHR 之间的一致性差异很小(偏差:0.4,95% 置信区间:-0.8 至 1.6 bpm),与 OBPM(偏差 -2,95% 置信区间:-2.8 至 -1.3 bpm)和 ECG(偏差 1.6,95% 置信区间:0.5 至 2.7 bpm)的一致性较差。作者发现,uAOBPM 和心电图在识别 RHR > 80 bpm OBPM 的受试者方面具有明显的一致性,科恩卡帕系数分别为 0.783 和 0.671。他们的研究结果表明,用 uAOBPM 测量的 RHR 与 OBPM、ABPM 和心电图的一致性仍可接受,其中与日间 ABPM 测量的 RHR 的一致性最好。
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
Journal of Clinical Hypertension
Journal of Clinical Hypertension PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Hypertension is a peer-reviewed, monthly publication that serves internists, cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, hypertension specialists, primary care practitioners, pharmacists and all professionals interested in hypertension by providing objective, up-to-date information and practical recommendations on the full range of clinical aspects of hypertension. Commentaries and columns by experts in the field provide further insights into our original research articles as well as on major articles published elsewhere. Major guidelines for the management of hypertension are also an important feature of the Journal. Through its partnership with the World Hypertension League, JCH will include a new focus on hypertension and public health, including major policy issues, that features research and reviews related to disease characteristics and management at the population level.
×
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