Blood Pressure Monitoring最新文献

Background: A possible chronic effect of exercise training is the attenuation of the acute decrease in blood pressure (BP) observed after the execution of a session of exercise [i.e. called postexercise hypotension (PEH)]. However, there are few empirical data regarding this issue, and the possible mechanisms involved in this blunted response have not been studied.

Aim: The study aimed to evaluate the effects of dynamic resistance training (DRT) on PEH and its systemic, vascular, and autonomic mechanisms.

Methods: Data from 16 middle-aged treated hypertensive men who underwent DRT (eight exercises, 50% of 1RM, three sets until moderate fatigue) three times/week for 10 weeks were analyzed. Before and after the training period, the participants underwent an experimental session in which BP (auscultation), systemic hemodynamics (CO 2 rebreathing), vascular function (duplex ultrasound), and cardiovascular autonomic modulation (spectral analysis of heart rate and BP variabilities) were assessed before and after a session of DRT.

Results: DRT reduced preexercise systolic BP and mitigated the systolic PEH that occurred before but not after the training period ( P  = 0.017). DRT did not change the diastolic PEH that occurred with similar magnitude before and after the training period ( P  = 0.024). DRT did not change the PEH mechanisms, except for cardiac sympathovagal balance that increased significantly more after the session of DRT conducted in the posttraining evaluation ( P  = 0.017).

Conclusion: In medicated hypertensive men, 10 weeks of DRT decreased preexercise systolic BP, abolished systolic PEH, and induced a greater increase in postdynamic resistance exercise sympathovagal balance.

Objective: Although it has long been established that age and sex play a role in blood pressure levels across the lifespan, the extent to which educational attainment moderates these relationships has been understudied. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess educational differences in SBP, DBP, and pulse pressure (PP) trajectories among men and women through the midlife years.

Method: We conducted an analysis of pooled data from the 1999 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to assess whether education moderates blood pressure measurements among men and women over the midlife years. Statistical analyses were performed using survey-weighted linear and quadratic regressions to assess these trajectories.

Results: During midlife, women with at least a college degree maintained the lowest average level of SBP compared to men at all education levels and women with a high school diploma or less. They also maintained the lowest level of PP, though not different from men with at least a college degree and women with less than a college degree. However, no educational differences were observed in DBP between men and women during the midlife years.

Conclusion: Our study shows clear delineation in the trajectories of PP and SBP by education such that a 4-year education is more protective than some college and a high school degree, particularly among women. These results highlight the need to consider upstream policy interventions (education policy initiatives) that could reduce population-wide elevated blood pressure.

Objective: Stress and working environments are risk factors for hypertension. A new occupational health policy called the Stress Check Program was started in Japan in 2015. Therefore, we clarified whether the presence or absence of high job stress (HJS) as determined using the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) is related to the comorbidity of hypertension.

Methods: The results of a single year's BJSQ and medical examinations were investigated for 18 629 active Japanese male office workers who were 30-59 years old. The presence or absence of HJS was assessed using the BJSQ and investigated using a personal computer in a medical interview. Furthermore, the relationships between HJS and hypertension comorbidity were analyzed.

Results: The mean age of the subjects was 43.8 ± 10.3 years old, and the proportion of subjects with HJS was 10%. After adjustment for age and lifestyle habits, HJS was associated with a risk of hypertension comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.36; P = 0.022). HJS was a significant hypertensive comorbidity factor.

Conclusion: HJS measured using the BJSQ independently contributed to hypertension comorbidity among male office workers.

The impact of wearing a face mask for an extended duration is unknown. This study aimed to determine if wearing a face mask for 10 h impacts blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness. Subjects received an ambulatory blood pressure cuff and were asked to wear it for 10 h while readings were taken every 15 min. During the face mask trial, subjects wore an N95 mask for 10 h. During the control, subjects did not wear a mask. Subjects were randomized to start their trial. An accelerometer was given to ensure no physical activity differences. Linear mixed models were used to determine group differences, and McNemar test was used to assess frequency differences when determining BP load. Twelve college-aged (20.5 ± 1.5 years) male ( n  = 5) and female ( n  = 7) individuals with normal BP participated in this study. There were no differences in time spent in any physical activity domain (all P  > 0.05). There was no difference in brachial SBP ( P  = 0.688), brachial DBP ( P  = 0.063), central SBP ( P  = 0.875), central DBP ( P  = 0.246), heart rate ( P  = 0.125), and augmentation pressure ( P  = 0.158) between conditions. During mask condition, augmentation pressure was reduced by 5.2 ± 3.1% compared to control ( P  < 0.001). There were no frequency differences in the number of BP readings above 140 mmHg for SBP ( P  = 0.479) and >90 mmHg for DBP ( P  = 0.212). The current study found that wearing an N95 mask for 10 h did not affect brachial or central BP but significantly decreased augmentation pressure.

Objective: To validate the accuracy of the G.LAB MD6300 oscillometric upper arm blood pressure monitor in the sitting, supine, and right lateral decubitus position in the general population according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2 : 2018+AMD1 : 2020).

Methods: The qualified participants were recruited in the study and the same left-arm sequential method was used for blood pressure measurement according to the Universal Standard. The validation results were assessed for the three positions and the Bland-Altman scatter plot was used to show the difference between the test device and reference results.

Results: A total of 85 participants were included in the analysis. The mean differences between the test device and reference readings were 0.95 ± 6.76/0.47 ± 6.71 mmHg, 0.55 ± 6.73/-0.20 ± 6.72 mmHg, and - 0.71 ± 7.11/-0.86 ± 7.06 mmHg for SBP and DBP for the validation criterion 1 in the sitting position, supine with upward palm position, and right lateral decubitus position with downward left palm flat on left side position, respectively. Furthermore, the mean differences and their standard deviations for SBP and DBP calculated according to criterion 2 in the ISO81060-2 : 2018+AMD1 : 2020 were acceptable in all three positions.

Conclusion: The G.LAB MD6300 upper arm blood pressure monitor fulfilled the validation criteria of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2 : 2018+AMD1 : 2020) in the sitting position, and its accuracy in the supine and right lateral decubitus position was acceptable and roughly equivalent to that in the sitting position. Therefore, it can be recommended for clinical use and self-measurement in the general population.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the JAMR upper-arm blood pressure monitor B23 in the general population according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2 : 2018/AMD 1 : 2020). The study recruited participants who met the criteria of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard in terms of their number, sex, age, limb size, and blood pressure (BP) distribution. The study involved measuring BP, including both SBP and DBP, using both the test device and a standard mercury sphygmomanometer in sequential measurements. Of 90 participants, 85 qualified participants were analyzed. A total of 255 sets of comparison data (three sets for each subject) were obtained and analyzed. For the validation criterion 1, the mean ± SD of the differences between the JAMR B23 and mercury sphygmomanometer BP readings was -0.24 ± 6.52/-2.67 ± 5.6 mmHg (SBP/DBP). For criterion 2, the SD of the averaged BP (SBP/DBP) differences between the JAMR B23 and reference BP (SBP/DBP) per participant was 5.61/5.13 mmHg (the requirement was ≤6.95/6.43 mmHg by calculation). The JAMR B23 passed all the requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2 : 2018/AMD 1 : 2020) and can be recommended for clinical and self/home use in the general population.

Background: This study aims to compare the differences between unattended and conventional blood pressure measurements in hospitalized hypertensive patients.

Methods: In fall of 2019, hypertensive patients at Ruijin Hospital underwent two rounds of unattended and conventional (nurse-monitored) blood pressure measurement. Both rounds used the same electronic blood pressure monitor with measurements taken three times, 30 s apart. Comparison was made using intra-class correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, paired t -tests, etc.

Results: Among the 92 subjects in the study, the median age was 50 years old, with women accounting for 33.7%. Among the subjects, the median duration of hypertension was 8.0 years. The prevalence of diabetes, coronary heart disease, and stroke were 26.1%, 5.4%, and 6.5%, respectively. Whether unattended or conventional measurements were taken first, the average blood pressure measured first was slightly higher than the one measured later, but the difference was within 1-2 mmHg. Except that the average DBP during the round of conventional blood pressure measurements was significantly reduced by 1.6 mmHg compared to the conventional DBP, there were no other significant differences. Subgroup analysis by age, gender, BMI, and diabetes showed no significant difference in blood pressure measurement results between unattended and conventional methods.

Conclusion: No significant difference was observed between unattended and conventional methods of blood pressure measurement in hospitalized hypertensive patients. Unattended blood pressure measurement can be adopted as the current standard for blood pressure management in hospitalized patients.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the wrist blood pressure (BP) monitor (TMB-2285-BT) in general population according to international standard of ISO 81060-2:2018+Amd.1:2020. The TMB-2285-BT BP monitor is an oscillometric device measuring BP from wrist. A single cuff for wrist sizes of 13.5-21.5 cm was used for the test device. The study was performed according to the 'International Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018 + Amd.1:2020) protocol' using the same-arm sequential BP measurement method. Subjects ( n ≥ 85) fulfilling the age, gender, BP, and cuff distribution criteria of the protocol were enrolled. For criterion 1, the mean difference of SBP and DBP between the test device and the reference device was -0.27 mmHg and -0.80 mmHg, respectively. For criterion 2, the SD of the averaged paired determinations of SBP and DBP for the test device and the reference device was 2.60 and 2.06 mmHg, respectively, both of which were less than 6.95 and 6.89 mmHg. The accuracy of the test device fulfilled the requirements of the criterion 1 and 2 of ISO 81060-2:2018 + Amd.1:2020. The TMB-2285-BT wrist BP monitor can be recommended for home BP measurement for general population.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the DBP-8278B Wrist-type Fully Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor in the general population according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2 : 2018/AMD 1 : 2020). The test monitor was used to measure SBP and DBP and pulse rate in the wrists using the oscillometric method. According to this protocol using the same-arm sequential blood pressure measurement method, subjects were recruited to fulfill the age, sex, blood pressure, and cuff distribution criteria of the Universal Standard. A single cuff for wrist sizes of 13.5-21.5 cm was used. A total of 85 subjects were included in this study. According to Criterion 1, the mean difference in SBP between the test device and the reference device was 0.89 mmHg, with a SD of 7.76 mmHg. The mean difference of DBP was -1.44 mmHg, with a SD of 6.23 mmHg. The mean difference between SBP and DBP was less than 5.0 mmHg, and the SD was less than 8.0 mmHg, which met the requirements. According to Criterion 2, the SD of the mean differences of SBP between the test device and the reference device per subject was 5.65 mmHg, which was less than 6.88 mmHg and met the requirements. The SD of the mean differences of DBP between the test device and the reference device per subject was 5.61 mmHg, which was less than 6.78 mmHg and met the requirements. The DBP-8278B Wrist-type Fully Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor met the requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2 : 2018/AMD 1 : 2020). It can be recommended for home and clinical use.