The Benefit of Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement on the White-coat Effect: A Cross-sectional Study

Q3 Medicine
Chavalit Chotruangnapa, Piyawan Thongdang
{"title":"The Benefit of Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement on the White-coat Effect: A Cross-sectional Study","authors":"Chavalit Chotruangnapa, Piyawan Thongdang","doi":"10.33192/smj.v75i6.261881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare blood pressure (BP) and heart rate measured by attended and unattended automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) versus home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) and the effect of unattended AOBPM on the classification of BP phenotypes.\nMaterials and Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted at the outpatient department in Siriraj Hospital, Thailand. All participants measured their office BP using attended and unattended techniques in random order and recorded home BP twice a day for consecutive 7 days. The agreement between office BP from both AOBPM methods and that from HBPM was analyzed using the Bland-Altman plot. The change in the proportion of each BP phenotype was also analyzed.\nResults: We included 114 participants. The mean age was 57.96 + 15.07 years. The average BP from attended AOBPM, unattended AOBPM, and HBPM were 150.52 + 16.12/81.77 + 11.04, 139.68 + 13.80/78.55 + 11.71, and 126.91 + 9.80/76.40 + 8.37 mmHg, respectively. The BP and heart rate measured by these techniques were significantly different (p-value of <0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed the biases of attended and unattended SBP versus home SBP were 23.61 and 12.77 mmHg, respectively. Unattended AOBPM significantly decreased the numbers of patients classified as white-coat and sustained hypertension regardless of BP thresholds (p-value of <0.001 for both groups).\nConclusion: Unattended AOBPM significantly minimizes the white-coat effect in real-life clinical practice and may help physicians avoid overdiagnosis of hypertension. Nevertheless, it does not replace HBPM.","PeriodicalId":37270,"journal":{"name":"Siriraj Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Siriraj Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33192/smj.v75i6.261881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare blood pressure (BP) and heart rate measured by attended and unattended automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) versus home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) and the effect of unattended AOBPM on the classification of BP phenotypes. Materials and Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted at the outpatient department in Siriraj Hospital, Thailand. All participants measured their office BP using attended and unattended techniques in random order and recorded home BP twice a day for consecutive 7 days. The agreement between office BP from both AOBPM methods and that from HBPM was analyzed using the Bland-Altman plot. The change in the proportion of each BP phenotype was also analyzed. Results: We included 114 participants. The mean age was 57.96 + 15.07 years. The average BP from attended AOBPM, unattended AOBPM, and HBPM were 150.52 + 16.12/81.77 + 11.04, 139.68 + 13.80/78.55 + 11.71, and 126.91 + 9.80/76.40 + 8.37 mmHg, respectively. The BP and heart rate measured by these techniques were significantly different (p-value of <0.001). Bland-Altman analysis showed the biases of attended and unattended SBP versus home SBP were 23.61 and 12.77 mmHg, respectively. Unattended AOBPM significantly decreased the numbers of patients classified as white-coat and sustained hypertension regardless of BP thresholds (p-value of <0.001 for both groups). Conclusion: Unattended AOBPM significantly minimizes the white-coat effect in real-life clinical practice and may help physicians avoid overdiagnosis of hypertension. Nevertheless, it does not replace HBPM.
无人值守自动化办公室血压测量对白大褂效应的影响:一项横断面研究
目的:比较有人值守和无人值守的自动办公室血压测量(AOBPM)与家庭血压测量(HBPM)测量的血压(BP)和心率,以及无人值守的AOBPM对BP表型分类的影响。材料和方法:横断面研究在泰国Siriraj医院门诊部进行。所有参与者随机使用有人值守和无人值守技术测量他们的办公室血压,并连续7天每天记录两次家庭血压。使用Bland-Altman图分析了AOBPM方法和HBPM方法中office BP之间的一致性。还分析了每种BP表型的比例变化。结果:我们包括114名参与者。平均年龄57.96±15.07岁。参与AOBPM、无人参与AOBPM和HBPM的平均血压分别为150.52+16.12/81.77+11.04、139.68+13.80/78.55+11.71和126.91+9.80/76.40+8.37mmHg。通过这些技术测量的血压和心率有显著差异(p值<0.001)。Bland-Altman分析显示,有人看管和无人看管的收缩压与家庭收缩压的偏差分别为23.61和12.77mmHg。无论血压阈值如何,无人参与的AOBPM都显著减少了被归类为白大褂和持续性高血压的患者数量(两组的p值均<0.001)。尽管如此,它并不能取代HBPM。
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
Siriraj Medical Journal
Siriraj Medical Journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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