Search

BACKGROUND Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) involving repeated, unobserved blood pressure (BP) readings during one clinic visit is recommended for in-office diagnosis and assessment of hypertension. However, the optimal AOBP protocol to determine BP control in the least amount of time with the fewest BP readings is yet to be determined and was the aim of this study. METHODS One hundred and eighty-nine patients (mean age 62.8 ± 12.1 years; 50.3% female) with treated hypertension referred to specialist clinics at 2 sites underwent AOBP in a quiet room alone. Eight BP measurements were taken starting immediately after sitting and then at 2-minute intervals (15 minutes total). The optimal AOBP protocol was defined by the smallest mean difference and highest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) compared with daytime ambulatory BP (ABP). The same BP device (Mobil-o-graph, IEM) was used for both AOBP and daytime ABP. RESULTS Average 15-minute AOBP and daytime ABP were 134 ± 22/82 ± 13 and 137 ± 17/83 ± 11 mm Hg, respectively. The optimal AOBP protocol was derived within a total duration of 6 minutes from the average of 2 measures started after 2 and 4 minutes of seated rest (systolic BP: mean difference (95% con- fidence interval) 0.004(-2.21, 2.21) mm Hg, P = 1.0; ICC = 0.81; diastolic BP: mean difference 0.37(-0.90, 1.63) mm Hg, P = 0.57; ICC = 0.86). AOBP measures taken after 8 minutes tended to underestimate daytime ABP (whether as a single BP or the average of more than 1 BP reading). CONCLUSIONS Only 2 AOBP readings taken over 6 minutes (excluding an initial reading immediately after sitting) may be needed to be comparable with daytime ABP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinic blood pressure (BP) is recommended for absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment. However, in 'real-world' settings, clinic BP measurement is unstandardised and less reliable compared to more rigorous methods but the impact for absolute CVD risk assessment is unknown. This study aimed to determine the difference in absolute CVD risk assessment using real-world clinic BP compared to standardised BP methods. Participants were patients (n = 226, 59 ± 15 years; 58% female) with hypertension referred to a BP clinic for assessment. 'Real-world' clinic BP was provided by the referring doctor. All participants had unobserved automated office BP (AOBP) and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) measured at the clinic. Absolute CVD risk was calculated (Framingham) using systolic BP from the referring doctor (clinic BP), AOBP and ABPM, with agreement assessed by Kappa statistic. Clinic systolic BP was 18 mmHg than AOBP and daytime ABPM and 22 mmHg higher than 24-h ABPM (p < 0.001). Subsequently, absolute CVD risk scores using clinic BP were higher compared to AOBP, daytime ABPM and 24-h ABPM (10.4 ± 8.1%, 7.8 ± 6.4%, 7.8 ± 6.3%, and 7.3 ± 6.1%, respectively, P < 0.001). As a result, more participants were classified as high CVD risk using clinic BP (n = 89, 40%) compared with AOBP (n = 44, 20%) daytime ABPM (n = 38, 17%) and 24-h ABPM (n = 38, 17%) (p < 0.001) with weak agreement in risk classification (κ = 0.57[0.45-0.69], κ = 0.52[0.41-0.64] and κ = 0.55[0.43-0.66], respectively). Real-world clinic BP was higher and classified twice as many participants at high CVD risk compared to AOBP or ABPM. Given the challenges to high-quality BP measurement in clinic, more rigorous BP measurement methods are needed for absolute CVD risk assessment., (© 2024. The Author(s).)