Comparison of outcomes for routine versus American Heart Association-recommended technique for blood pressure measurement (CORRECT BP): a randomised cohort studyResearch in context

Summary: Background: Optimal clinical care, diagnosis and treatment requires accurate blood pressure (BP) values. The primary objective was to compare BP readings taken while adhering to American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines to those typical of routine clinical care. Specifically studied: the combined effect of feet flat on the floor, back supported, and arm supported with cuff at heart level, while adhering to other guideline recommendations. Methods: In this prospective, randomised, three-group cohort study, a modified cross-over design was applied in a primary care outpatient office setting in Columbus (OH, USA). Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with an arm circumference of ≥18 cm and ≤42 cm who did not have a renal dialysis shunt or a previous or current diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. 150 recruited volunteers meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly randomised into the three groups. Group methodologies were BP readings taken on a fixed-height exam table followed by readings taken in an exam chair with adjustable positioning options (Group A), readings taken in the reverse order, chair then table (Group B), and both sets of readings in the exam chair (Group C). A rest period occurred before each set of readings. Group C was included for the purpose of obtaining an independent estimate of the order effect. The order in which the two types of readings (table vs chair) were taken was randomised. The primary outcome was the difference between the mean of three BP readings taken on the table and the mean of three readings taken in the chair. Findings: Between September and October, 2022, 150 participants were enrolled in the study; all 150 of whom completed testing: 48 in Group A, 49 in Group B, 53 in Group C. The mean systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) of readings taken on the table (Group A first readings, Group B second readings) were 7.0/4.5 mmHg higher than those taken in the chair (Group A second readings, Group B first readings); both statistically significant, p