Clinical Impact of after-consult clinic blood pressure: comparison with automated office blood pressure.

IF 2.6 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Clinical Hypertension Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI:10.1186/s40885-021-00171-5
Cheol Ho Lee, Ji Hun Ahn, Joon Ha Ryu, Woong Gil Choi
{"title":"Clinical Impact of after-consult clinic blood pressure: comparison with automated office blood pressure.","authors":"Cheol Ho Lee,&nbsp;Ji Hun Ahn,&nbsp;Joon Ha Ryu,&nbsp;Woong Gil Choi","doi":"10.1186/s40885-021-00171-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is most important to measure blood pressure (BP) exactly in treating hypertension. Recent recommendations for diagnosing hypertension clearly acknowledge that an increase in BP attributable to the \"whitecoat response\" is frequently associated with manual BP recordings performed in community-based practice. However, there was no data about after-consult (AC) BP that could reduce whitecoat effect. So we evaluated before-consult (BC) and AC routine clinic BP and research based automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measured.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study population consisted of 82 consecutive patients with hypertension between April 2019 and December 2019. We measured routine clinic BP and AOBP before and after see a doctor, respectively. Seated blood pressure and pulse are measured at each time after a rest period using an automated device as it offers reduced potential for observer biases. AOBP was measured and measuring BP 3 times un-observed. We compared each BP parameter for identifying exact resting BP state.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was significant difference between BC and AC systolic BP (135.37 ± 16.90 vs. 131.95 ± 16.40 mmHg, p = 0.015). However there was no difference in the BC and AC diastolic blood pressure (73.75 ± 11.85 vs. 74.42 ± 11.71 mmHg, p = 0.415). In the AOBP comparison, there was also significant difference (BC systolic AOBP vs. AC systolic AOBP, 125.17 ± 14.41 vs. 122.98 ± 14.09 mmHg, p = 0.006; BC diastolic ABOB vs. AC diastolic AOBP, 71.99 ± 10.49 vs. 70.99 ± 9.83, p = 0.038).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our study, AC AOBP was most lowest representing resting state. Although AC BP was higher than BC AOBP, it might be used as alternative measurement for reducing whitecoat effect in the routine clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":10480,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Hypertension","volume":"27 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40885-021-00171-5","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40885-021-00171-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It is most important to measure blood pressure (BP) exactly in treating hypertension. Recent recommendations for diagnosing hypertension clearly acknowledge that an increase in BP attributable to the "whitecoat response" is frequently associated with manual BP recordings performed in community-based practice. However, there was no data about after-consult (AC) BP that could reduce whitecoat effect. So we evaluated before-consult (BC) and AC routine clinic BP and research based automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measured.

Methods: The study population consisted of 82 consecutive patients with hypertension between April 2019 and December 2019. We measured routine clinic BP and AOBP before and after see a doctor, respectively. Seated blood pressure and pulse are measured at each time after a rest period using an automated device as it offers reduced potential for observer biases. AOBP was measured and measuring BP 3 times un-observed. We compared each BP parameter for identifying exact resting BP state.

Results: There was significant difference between BC and AC systolic BP (135.37 ± 16.90 vs. 131.95 ± 16.40 mmHg, p = 0.015). However there was no difference in the BC and AC diastolic blood pressure (73.75 ± 11.85 vs. 74.42 ± 11.71 mmHg, p = 0.415). In the AOBP comparison, there was also significant difference (BC systolic AOBP vs. AC systolic AOBP, 125.17 ± 14.41 vs. 122.98 ± 14.09 mmHg, p = 0.006; BC diastolic ABOB vs. AC diastolic AOBP, 71.99 ± 10.49 vs. 70.99 ± 9.83, p = 0.038).

Conclusions: In our study, AC AOBP was most lowest representing resting state. Although AC BP was higher than BC AOBP, it might be used as alternative measurement for reducing whitecoat effect in the routine clinical practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
会诊后门诊血压的临床影响:与办公室自动血压的比较。
背景:准确测量血压在高血压治疗中至关重要。最近的高血压诊断建议明确承认,“白大褂反应”引起的血压升高通常与社区实践中进行的手动血压记录有关。然而,没有关于咨询后血压(AC)可以减少白衣效应的数据。因此,我们评估会诊前(BC)和AC常规临床血压和基于研究的自动办公室血压(AOBP)测量。方法:研究人群包括2019年4月至2019年12月期间连续82例高血压患者。分别在就诊前后测量常规临床血压和AOBP。在休息一段时间后,每次使用自动化设备测量坐姿血压和脉搏,因为它减少了观察者偏差的可能性。测量AOBP,并在未观察的情况下测量BP 3次。我们比较了每个血压参数,以确定准确的静息血压状态。结果:BC组与AC组的收缩压差异有统计学意义(135.37±16.90 vs 131.95±16.40 mmHg, p = 0.015)。然而,BC和AC舒张压无差异(73.75±11.85比74.42±11.71 mmHg, p = 0.415)。在AOBP的比较中,也有显著差异(BC组收缩期AOBP vs AC组收缩期AOBP, 125.17±14.41 vs 122.98±14.09 mmHg, p = 0.006;BC舒张ABOB vs AC舒张AOBP, 71.99±10.49 vs 70.99±9.83,p = 0.038)。结论:在我们的研究中,AC AOBP最低,代表静息状态。虽然AC血压高于BC AOBP,但在常规临床实践中可作为减少白衣效应的替代指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Hypertension
Clinical Hypertension PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
34
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Age and blood pressure stratified healthy vascular aging, organ damage and prognosis in the community-dwelling elderly: insights from the North Shanghai Study. Amlodipine increases risk of primary open-angle glaucoma. Association of aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activity with chronic kidney disease in participants with hypertension. Cost-effectiveness of strengthening blood pressure classification in South Korea: comparing the 2017 ACC/AHA and KSH guidelines. Editorial: The 30-year journey of the clinical hypertension.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1