Hairong Liu, Di Zhao, Ahmed Sabit, Chathurangi H Pathiravasan, Junichi Ishigami, Jeanne Charleston, Edgar R Miller, Kunihiro Matsushita, Lawrence J Appel, Tammy M Brady
{"title":"Arm Position and Blood Pressure Readings: The ARMS Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Hairong Liu, Di Zhao, Ahmed Sabit, Chathurangi H Pathiravasan, Junichi Ishigami, Jeanne Charleston, Edgar R Miller, Kunihiro Matsushita, Lawrence J Appel, Tammy M Brady","doi":"10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.5213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Guidelines for blood pressure (BP) measurement recommend arm support on a desk with the midcuff positioned at heart level. Still, nonstandard positions are used in clinical practice (eg, with arm resting on the lap or unsupported on the side).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the effect of different arm positions on BP readings.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This crossover randomized clinical trial recruited adults between the ages of 18 and 80 years in Baltimore, Maryland, from August 9, 2022, to June 1, 2023.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Participants were randomly assigned to sets of triplicate BP measurements with the arm positioned in 3 ways: (1) supported on a desk (desk 1; reference), (2) hand supported on lap (lap), and (3) arm unsupported at the side (side). To account for intrinsic BP variability, all participants underwent a fourth set of BP measurements with the arm supported on a desk (desk 2).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcomes were the difference in differences in mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) between the reference BP (desk 1) and the 2 arm support positions (lap and side): (lap or side - desk 1) - (desk 2 - desk 1). Results were also stratified by hypertensive status, age, obesity status, and access to health care within the past year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The trial enrolled 133 participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [17] years; 70 [53%] female); 48 participants (36%) had SBP of 130 mm Hg or higher, and 55 participants (41%) had a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 or higher. Lap and side positions resulted in statistically significant higher BP readings than desk positions, with the difference in differences as follows: lap, SBP Δ 3.9 (95% CI, 2.5-5.2) mm Hg and DBP Δ 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.0) mm Hg; and side, SBP Δ 6.5 (95% CI, 5.1-7.9) mm Hg and DBP Δ 4.4 (95% CI, 3.4-5.4) mm Hg. The patterns were generally consistent across subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>This crossover randomized clinical trial showed that commonly used arm positions (lap or side) resulted in substantial overestimation of BP readings and may lead to misdiagnosis and overestimation of hypertension.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05372328.</p>","PeriodicalId":14714,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1436-1442"},"PeriodicalIF":22.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11459360/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.5213","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Importance: Guidelines for blood pressure (BP) measurement recommend arm support on a desk with the midcuff positioned at heart level. Still, nonstandard positions are used in clinical practice (eg, with arm resting on the lap or unsupported on the side).
Objective: To determine the effect of different arm positions on BP readings.
Design, setting, and participants: This crossover randomized clinical trial recruited adults between the ages of 18 and 80 years in Baltimore, Maryland, from August 9, 2022, to June 1, 2023.
Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to sets of triplicate BP measurements with the arm positioned in 3 ways: (1) supported on a desk (desk 1; reference), (2) hand supported on lap (lap), and (3) arm unsupported at the side (side). To account for intrinsic BP variability, all participants underwent a fourth set of BP measurements with the arm supported on a desk (desk 2).
Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcomes were the difference in differences in mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) between the reference BP (desk 1) and the 2 arm support positions (lap and side): (lap or side - desk 1) - (desk 2 - desk 1). Results were also stratified by hypertensive status, age, obesity status, and access to health care within the past year.
Results: The trial enrolled 133 participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [17] years; 70 [53%] female); 48 participants (36%) had SBP of 130 mm Hg or higher, and 55 participants (41%) had a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 30 or higher. Lap and side positions resulted in statistically significant higher BP readings than desk positions, with the difference in differences as follows: lap, SBP Δ 3.9 (95% CI, 2.5-5.2) mm Hg and DBP Δ 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.0) mm Hg; and side, SBP Δ 6.5 (95% CI, 5.1-7.9) mm Hg and DBP Δ 4.4 (95% CI, 3.4-5.4) mm Hg. The patterns were generally consistent across subgroups.
Conclusion and relevance: This crossover randomized clinical trial showed that commonly used arm positions (lap or side) resulted in substantial overestimation of BP readings and may lead to misdiagnosis and overestimation of hypertension.
期刊介绍：
JAMA Internal Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed journal committed to advancing the field of internal medicine worldwide. With a focus on four core priorities—clinical relevance, clinical practice change, credibility, and effective communication—the journal aims to provide indispensable and trustworthy peer-reviewed evidence.
Catering to academics, clinicians, educators, researchers, and trainees across the entire spectrum of internal medicine, including general internal medicine and subspecialties, JAMA Internal Medicine publishes innovative and clinically relevant research. The journal strives to deliver stimulating articles that educate and inform readers with the latest research findings, driving positive change in healthcare systems and patient care delivery.
As a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed medical publications, JAMA Internal Medicine plays a pivotal role in shaping the discourse and advancing patient care in internal medicine.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
