Routine versus standardized blood pressure measurements: Agreement and association with cardiovascular disease.

IF 7.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Olivia Gästgivars, Joachim Ögren, Bo Carlberg, Mattias Brunström
{"title":"Routine versus standardized blood pressure measurements: Agreement and association with cardiovascular disease.","authors":"Olivia Gästgivars, Joachim Ögren, Bo Carlberg, Mattias Brunström","doi":"10.1111/joim.70164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recommendations for blood pressure (BP) measurement are poorly followed in clinical practice, possibly leading to inaccurate BP estimates.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the agreement between routine and standardized BPs, and the association between BP level and cardiovascular disease (CVD) for each measurement type.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Standardized BPs were recorded in a screening program for middle-aged people during 1992-2012 in Sweden. Intraindividual differences between standardized BP and routine BP from primary care were calculated. Association between BP level and composite CVD, and population-attributable fraction (PAF) explained by BP, were determined through adjusted Cox regression for each measurement type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 9567 participants, routine BPs were on average 4.0/1.7 mmHg higher than standardized BPs. Routine measurements frequently misclassified people into higher BP categories; 16% more had hypertension (≥130/80 mmHg), and 50% less had normal BP (<120/80 mmHg), compared with standardized measurements. Analysis of 19,720 participants found a stronger association between BP level and CVD for standardized than for routine measurements, with increased risk from ≥120/80 and ≥140/90 mmHg, respectively. Adjusted hazard ratio for ≥140/90 mmHg compared to <120/80 mmHg was 2.11 (95% confidence interval 1.77-2.51) for standardized BPs and 1.43 (1.15-1.77) for routine BPs. BP ≥120/80 mmHg explained 41.8% (32.0-50.1) of CVD events with standardized measurements and 19.3% (1.5-33.8) with routine measurements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Routine BPs deviate from standardized BPs, resulting in significant misclassification and attenuated association with CVD, reducing the PAF for BP to less than half. Our findings emphasize the need for accurate BP measurement in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.70164","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recommendations for blood pressure (BP) measurement are poorly followed in clinical practice, possibly leading to inaccurate BP estimates.

Objectives: To assess the agreement between routine and standardized BPs, and the association between BP level and cardiovascular disease (CVD) for each measurement type.

Methods: Standardized BPs were recorded in a screening program for middle-aged people during 1992-2012 in Sweden. Intraindividual differences between standardized BP and routine BP from primary care were calculated. Association between BP level and composite CVD, and population-attributable fraction (PAF) explained by BP, were determined through adjusted Cox regression for each measurement type.

Results: In 9567 participants, routine BPs were on average 4.0/1.7 mmHg higher than standardized BPs. Routine measurements frequently misclassified people into higher BP categories; 16% more had hypertension (≥130/80 mmHg), and 50% less had normal BP (<120/80 mmHg), compared with standardized measurements. Analysis of 19,720 participants found a stronger association between BP level and CVD for standardized than for routine measurements, with increased risk from ≥120/80 and ≥140/90 mmHg, respectively. Adjusted hazard ratio for ≥140/90 mmHg compared to <120/80 mmHg was 2.11 (95% confidence interval 1.77-2.51) for standardized BPs and 1.43 (1.15-1.77) for routine BPs. BP ≥120/80 mmHg explained 41.8% (32.0-50.1) of CVD events with standardized measurements and 19.3% (1.5-33.8) with routine measurements.

Conclusion: Routine BPs deviate from standardized BPs, resulting in significant misclassification and attenuated association with CVD, reducing the PAF for BP to less than half. Our findings emphasize the need for accurate BP measurement in clinical practice.

常规血压测量与标准化血压测量:与心血管疾病的一致性和相关性
背景:临床实践中对血压(BP)测量的建议很少遵循,可能导致不准确的血压估计。目的:评估常规血压和标准化血压之间的一致性,以及每种测量类型的血压水平与心血管疾病(CVD)之间的关系。方法:在1992-2012年瑞典中年人筛查项目中记录标准化血压。计算标准化血压和初级保健常规血压之间的个体差异。通过各测量类型的校正Cox回归,确定BP水平与复合CVD以及由BP解释的人群归因分数(PAF)之间的关系。结果:9567名参与者中,常规血压比标准化血压平均高4.0/1.7 mmHg。常规测量经常将患者错误地划分为高BP类别;16%以上的患者有高血压(≥130/80 mmHg), 50%以上的患者血压正常(结论:常规血压偏离标准血压,导致明显的错误分类,与CVD的相关性减弱,使血压PAF降至一半以下。我们的研究结果强调了在临床实践中准确测量血压的必要性。
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
Journal of Internal Medicine
Journal of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
22.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
176
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JIM – The Journal of Internal Medicine, in continuous publication since 1863, is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It publishes original work in clinical science, spanning from bench to bedside, encompassing a wide range of internal medicine and its subspecialties. JIM showcases original articles, reviews, brief reports, and research letters in the field of internal medicine.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书