Piotr Sobieraj, Mateusz Leśniewski, Agnieszka Sawicka, Maciej Siński, Jacek Lewandowski
{"title":"通过无人值守自动办公室和办公室血压测量、流动血压监测或心电图测量的静息心率之间的一致性。","authors":"Piotr Sobieraj, Mateusz Leśniewski, Agnieszka Sawicka, Maciej Siński, Jacek Lewandowski","doi":"10.1111/jch.14892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The application of unattended blood pressure measurement (uAOBPM) for resting heart rate (RHR) assessment is unknown. To assess the agreement between RHR measured during uAOBPM and other methods, the authors conducted a comparability study with office blood pressure measurement (OBPM), ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and electrocardiogram (ECG) in a group of 110 participants referred for ABPM. RHR measured with uAOBPM (70.8 ± 12.5 bpm) was significantly lower than OBPM (72.8 ± 12.6 bpm) but higher than measured by 24 h ABPM (67.5 ± 10.2 bpm). There was no significant difference was found between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (70.3 ± 11.2 bpm) or ECG (69.1 ± 11.6 bpm). Using Bland-Altman statistics, the authors discovered a small difference in agreement between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (bias: 0.4 with 95% confidence interval: -0.8 to 1.6 bpm), with a poorer agreement with OBPM (bias -2 with 95% confidence interval: -2.8 to -1.3 bpm) and ECG (bias 1.6 with 95% confidence interval: 0.5 to 2.7 bpm). The authors found significant agreement between uAOBPM and ECG in identifying subjects with RHR > 80 bpm OBPM, with Cohen's kappa coefficients of 0.783 and 0.671, respectively. Their findings indicate that RHR measured with uAOBPM remains in acceptable agreement with OBPM, ABPM, and ECG, the best agreement obtained with RHR from daytime ABPM.</p>","PeriodicalId":50237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement between resting heart rate measured by unattended automated office and office blood pressure measurement, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, or electrocardiography.\",\"authors\":\"Piotr Sobieraj, Mateusz Leśniewski, Agnieszka Sawicka, Maciej Siński, Jacek Lewandowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jch.14892\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The application of unattended blood pressure measurement (uAOBPM) for resting heart rate (RHR) assessment is unknown. To assess the agreement between RHR measured during uAOBPM and other methods, the authors conducted a comparability study with office blood pressure measurement (OBPM), ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and electrocardiogram (ECG) in a group of 110 participants referred for ABPM. RHR measured with uAOBPM (70.8 ± 12.5 bpm) was significantly lower than OBPM (72.8 ± 12.6 bpm) but higher than measured by 24 h ABPM (67.5 ± 10.2 bpm). There was no significant difference was found between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (70.3 ± 11.2 bpm) or ECG (69.1 ± 11.6 bpm). Using Bland-Altman statistics, the authors discovered a small difference in agreement between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (bias: 0.4 with 95% confidence interval: -0.8 to 1.6 bpm), with a poorer agreement with OBPM (bias -2 with 95% confidence interval: -2.8 to -1.3 bpm) and ECG (bias 1.6 with 95% confidence interval: 0.5 to 2.7 bpm). The authors found significant agreement between uAOBPM and ECG in identifying subjects with RHR > 80 bpm OBPM, with Cohen's kappa coefficients of 0.783 and 0.671, respectively. Their findings indicate that RHR measured with uAOBPM remains in acceptable agreement with OBPM, ABPM, and ECG, the best agreement obtained with RHR from daytime ABPM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Hypertension\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Hypertension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.14892\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.14892","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Agreement between resting heart rate measured by unattended automated office and office blood pressure measurement, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, or electrocardiography.
The application of unattended blood pressure measurement (uAOBPM) for resting heart rate (RHR) assessment is unknown. To assess the agreement between RHR measured during uAOBPM and other methods, the authors conducted a comparability study with office blood pressure measurement (OBPM), ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and electrocardiogram (ECG) in a group of 110 participants referred for ABPM. RHR measured with uAOBPM (70.8 ± 12.5 bpm) was significantly lower than OBPM (72.8 ± 12.6 bpm) but higher than measured by 24 h ABPM (67.5 ± 10.2 bpm). There was no significant difference was found between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (70.3 ± 11.2 bpm) or ECG (69.1 ± 11.6 bpm). Using Bland-Altman statistics, the authors discovered a small difference in agreement between RHR measured by uAOBPM and daytime ABPM (bias: 0.4 with 95% confidence interval: -0.8 to 1.6 bpm), with a poorer agreement with OBPM (bias -2 with 95% confidence interval: -2.8 to -1.3 bpm) and ECG (bias 1.6 with 95% confidence interval: 0.5 to 2.7 bpm). The authors found significant agreement between uAOBPM and ECG in identifying subjects with RHR > 80 bpm OBPM, with Cohen's kappa coefficients of 0.783 and 0.671, respectively. Their findings indicate that RHR measured with uAOBPM remains in acceptable agreement with OBPM, ABPM, and ECG, the best agreement obtained with RHR from daytime ABPM.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Clinical Hypertension is a peer-reviewed, monthly publication that serves internists, cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, hypertension specialists, primary care practitioners, pharmacists and all professionals interested in hypertension by providing objective, up-to-date information and practical recommendations on the full range of clinical aspects of hypertension. Commentaries and columns by experts in the field provide further insights into our original research articles as well as on major articles published elsewhere. Major guidelines for the management of hypertension are also an important feature of the Journal. Through its partnership with the World Hypertension League, JCH will include a new focus on hypertension and public health, including major policy issues, that features research and reviews related to disease characteristics and management at the population level.