Search

According to the European Hypertension Guidelines regarding office blood pressure measurements (OBPMs), the mean between second/third or third/fourth OBPM should be taken if the first two readings differ by ≤10 or >10 mmHg, respectively. Our aim was to explore the value of the fourth OBPM and determine whether a simplified OBPM procedure is feasible without loss of quality. In this cross‐sectional study, four standard OBPMs were taken. The mean of the second/third OBPM (S2S3/D2D3) and third/fourth OBPM (S3S4/D3D4) for systolic/diastolic values was calculated. Correlation, agreement, and differences regarding BP classification were explored for the entire cohort and subsets with a difference between the first/second OBPM (S1S2/D1D2) ≤10 and >10 mmHg. Overall (n = 802) and for the subsets with an S1S2 (n = 596) and D1D2 (n = 742) difference ≤10 mmHg, S3S4/D3D4 was in median 0.5 mmHg lower than S2S3/D2D3, respectively (p <.0005 for all). In participants with an S1S2 (n = 206) and D1D2 (n = 60) difference >10 mmHg, S3S4/D3D4 differed numerically from S2S3/D2D3, respectively (p >.1 for all). Overall and for all subsets with an S1S2/D1D2 difference ≤10/>10 mmHg, less subjects were numerically classified as hypertensive with S3S4/D3D4 than with S2S3/D2D3 (p >.04), but BP reclassification occurred in both directions in 1.0%‐10.0%, depending on the cohort. In conclusion, the third/fourth OBPM results in lower BP values than the second/third measurement, regardless of the difference between first/second OBPM, whereby BP reclassifications occurred in both directions. Therefore, the cutoff of >10 versus ≤10mmHg difference between first/second OBPM to implement a fourth BPM harbors the risk of distorted results. We therefore recommend using the second/third BPM for standardized OBPM. Trial registration: Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02552030). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The 2017 American hypertension guidelines [American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA)] define a blood pressure measurement (BPM) procedure that differs from the Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) guidelines. We studied the impact of the BPM procedure on arterial hypertension (AHT) prevalence rate. METHODS In 805 subjects, the mean of the first and second BPM (adapted ACC/AHA procedure) was compared with the mean of the second and third BPM (CHEP procedure). All BPMs were taken at a single occasion. According to ACC/AHA definition, office blood pressure (OBP) of <120/80 mm Hg was classified as normal, 120–129/<80 mm Hg as elevated, and ≥130/80 mm Hg as hypertensive. RESULTS Using the adapted ACC/AHA BPM procedure compared to the CHEP BPM procedure led to an increase in the AHT prevalence rate (≥130/80 mm Hg) of 4% (58% vs. 54%). Overall, 8.9% (72/805) of subjects were reclassified to a higher and 2.6% (21/805) to a lower blood pressure category when using the adapted ACC/AHA BPM procedure instead of the CHEP BPM procedure. In the group with elevated OBP (120–129/<80 mm Hg), 41.9% (36/86) of subjects were reclassified. CONCLUSIONS Minimal changes of BPM procedures lead to relevant changes of hypertension prevalence. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION Trial Number NCT02552030. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]