Search

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis., Objective: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension., Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic., Interventions: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks., Main Measures: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes., Key Results: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively., Limitations: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation., Conclusions: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Pharmacist- or nurse-led team care decreases patient blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk., Purpose: To evaluate whether a Web-based dietitian-led (WD) team care intervention was feasible and resulted in decreased BP, CVD risk, and weight compared to usual care (UC)., Methods: Electronic health record (EHR) data identified patients aged 30-69 years with BMI >26, elevated BP, and 10%-25% 10-year Framingham CVD risk who were registered patient website users. Patients with uncontrolled BP at screening were randomized to UC or WD, which included a home BP monitor, scale, and dietitian team care. WD participants had a single in-person dietitian visit to obtain baseline information and create a plan to reduce CVD risk. Planned follow-up occurred via secure messaging to report BP, weight, and fruit and vegetable intake and receive ongoing feedback. If needed, dietitians encouraged patients and their physicians to intensify antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications. Primary outcomes were change in systolic BP and weight loss ≥4 kg at 6 months. Feasibility outcomes included intervention utilization and satisfaction., Results: Between 2010 and 2011, a total of 90 of 101 participants completed 6-month follow-ups. The WD group had higher rates of secure messaging utilization and patient satisfaction. The WD group lost significantly more weight than the UC group (adjusted net difference=-3.2 kg, 95% CI=-5.0, -1.5, p<0.001) and was more likely to lose ≥4 kg (adjusted relative risk [RRadj]=2.96, 95% CI=1.16, 7.53). BP control and CVD risk reduction were greater in WD than UC, but differences were not statistically significant., Conclusions: WD intervention was feasible and resulted in decreased weight, BP, and CVD risk. A larger trial is justified., Trial Registration Number: Trial Registration Number: NCT01077388., (Copyright © 2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Web-based collaborative approaches to managing chronic illness show promise for both improving health outcomes and increasing the efficiency of the healthcare system., Objective: Analyze the cost-effectiveness of the Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring to Improve Blood Pressure Control (e-BP) study, a randomized controlled trial that used a patient-shared electronic medical record, home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, and web-based pharmacist care to improve BP control (<140/90 mm Hg)., Study Design: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from a health plan perspective., Methods: Cost-effectiveness of home BP monitoring and web-based pharmacist care estimated for percent change in patients with controlled BP and cost per mm Hg in diastolic and systolic BP relative to usual care and home BP monitoring alone., Results: A 1% improvement in number of patients with controlled BP using home BP monitoring and web-based pharmacist care-the e-BP program-costs $16.65 (95% confidence interval: 15.37- 17.94) relative to home BP monitoring and web training alone. Each mm HG reduction in systolic and diastolic BP achieved through the e-BP program costs $65.29 (59.91-70.67) relativeto home BP monitoring and web tools only. Life expectancy was increased at an incremental cost of $1850 (1635-2064) and $2220 (1745-2694) per year of life saved for men and women, respectively., Conclusions: Web-based collaborative care can be used to achieve BP control at a relatively low cost. Future research should examine the cost impact of potential long-term clinical improvements.

Background: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis. Objective: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18–85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic. Interventions: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks. Main Measures: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes. Key Results: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (−4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval −7.3, −2.2]; P<.001); home (−0.1mmHg [−1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (−7.2mmHg [−8.8, −5.5]; P<.001); home (−0.4mmHg [−1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively. Limitations: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation. Conclusions: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) using 3–5 measurements taken with an oscillometric device with or without an attendant in the room may decrease "white coat" effect. We evaluated the impact of the presence or absence of the attendant and rest on BP and diagnosis of hypertension. Methods We randomly assigned 133 adults aged 18–85 with high BP at baseline (≥140/90 mm Hg), no hypertensive diagnosis and no antihypertensive medications to either attended AOBP first, unattended second, or unattended AOBP first, attended second. Outcomes included within-person BP difference for attended vs. unattended measurements; 5 vs. 15 minutes of rest; and the diagnostic performance of AOBP compared with daytime automated blood pressure measurement (ABPM). Results We found no significant differences between attended and unattended AOBP (mean difference attended − unattended [95% confidence interval, CI], systolic 0.14 mm Hg [−0.78, 1.06]; diastolic 0.16 mm Hg [−0.45, 0.78]) or by rest time (mean difference 15 − 5 minutes [95% CI], systolic −0.45 mm Hg [−1.36, 0.47]; diastolic 0.61 mm Hg [−1.23, 0.003]). AOBP was lower than mean daytime ABPM, regardless of attendance or rest (after 5 minutes rest systolic −3.6 and diastolic −2.55 mm Hg, P = 0.001 for both comparisons). Using daytime ABPM of ≥135/85 mm Hg as the diagnostic threshold, AOBP sensitivity and specificity after 5 minutes of rest were 71.0% and 54.1%, respectively. Conclusions The presence or absence of a clinic attendant during AOBP measurement and the amount of rest time before AOBP measurements had no effects on BP. AOBP measurements have low sensitivity and specificity for making a new diagnosis of hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]