Search

The conventional nocturnal blood pressure monitoring (NBPM) systems can disturb sleep and lead to false measurements. The present study compared the validity and acceptability of a newly developed wrist-cuff system with that of the conventional upper arm-cuff system for NBPM.Home blood pressure (BP) and pulse rate (PR) were measured in hypertensive patients (n=57) every 30 min at night using a wrist-cuff system and at 2 am (fixed time) and 4 h after going to bed (flexible time) using an upper arm-cuff system. The nocturnal BPs with the wrist-cuff system at 2 am and at 4 h after going to bed were selected from the measurements taken every 30 min at night. The same systems were used to measure the morning and evening home BP and PR, after rising and before going to bed. Measurements were taken for two nights separately for each system. BP, PR, sleep quality, and the perception of several stimuli during NBPM were compared between the two systems. Systolic BP/diastolic BP (DBP) in the supine position at 2 am and at 4 h after going to bed were corrected by the mean difference between the wrist-cuff and the arm-cuff systems.Compared with the arm-cuff system, the wrist-cuff system had significantly lower systolic BP (mean±SD: 106.3±13.4 vs. 109.8±10.8 mmHg, P0.05), DBP (59.4±11.0 vs. 64.5±7.8 mmHg, P0.005), and PR (53.8±7.1 vs. 60.5±8.1 bpm, P0.0005) at 2 am and significantly lower DBP (60.2±10.3 vs. 66.0±9.8 mmHg, P0.005) and PR (53.6±7.4 vs. 60.9±8.5 bpm, P0.0005) at 4 h after going to bed. Among the participants, sleep disturbance during NBPM was reported in less than 20% with the wrist-cuff system and in 70% with the arm-cuff system. A significantly higher rate of participants who wore the wrist-cuff system reported that they were not bothered by various stimuli, such as noise, during NBPM.The newly developed wrist-cuff home NBPM system provided information on BP as a function of time, especially at night, with minimal sleep disturbance and with more frequent BP measurements.

We aimed to examine the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect and the time to attain the maximal antihypertensive effect (stabilization time) of several angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) based on home BP measurements.We surveyed consecutive newly diagnosed, untreated patients with hypertension who started the treatment with a mid-level dose of one of seven ARBs (losartan 50 mg, telmisartan 40 mg, candesartan 8 mg, olmesartan 20 mg, valsartan 80 mg, irbesartan 100 mg, or azilsartan 20 mg). All study participants measured home BP in the morning for at least 1 week during an untreated period and 4 weeks during the treatment period.Age, the proportion of men, and baseline home BP levels did not differ significantly between groups (total n = 232; age, 62.2 years; 50.9% men; home SBP/DBP, 151.6/90.0 mmHg). Significant differences in the BP-lowering effect and the stabilization time between ARBs were observed (P ≤ 0.02). The extent of BP-lowering effects of azilsartan 20 mg was significantly greater than that of valsartan 80 mg or irbesartan 100 mg (15.3 vs. 7.9 or 8.2 mmHg, respectively P ≤ 0.03). The stabilization time of losartan for home SBP was significantly longer than that of valsartan, irbesartan, or azilsartan (22.8 vs. 7.1, 4.7, or 7.1 days, respectively, P ≤ 0.01).The maximum effect and the stabilization time differed among ARBs used at the mid-level dose in Japan. An ARB should be chosen based on its desired characteristics.