Search

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., (© 2024 The Author(s). The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is recommended for diagnosing hypertension; however, optimal treatment targets using this method are not established. Discrepancies between automated and office measurements of blood pressure have been described, producing uncertainty regarding the use of AOBPM in clinical practice. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results improved our understanding of target AOBPM systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels; however, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) targets remain unknown. Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal on-treatment DBP range. The analysis was performed on the participants of the SPRINT trial who had hypertension and prior cardiovascular disease. We analyzed the data of 1470 participants (mean age 70.3 ± 9.3 years, 24.1% female) selected from the SPRINT trial database of National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. The mean achieved SBP and DBP were 127.9 ± 10.7 and 68.3 ± 9.4 mm Hg, respectively. Most of the participants (57.4%) had a DBP lower than 70 mm Hg, while only 11.7% had DPB ≥80 mm Hg. Clinical composite endpoint was defined as myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes. There were 159 (10.8%) clinical endpoint events. The participants with on-treatment AOBPM DBP range of 68.6-78.6 mm Hg showed the lowest hazard risk of a clinical composite endpoint. These results correspond to the office DBP range of 70-80 mm Hg recommended in ESC guidelines. This is the first attempt to determine the range of optimal DBP values using population-based AOBPM in patients with prior cardiovascular disease., (©2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)