%0 Journal Article %A Seidlerová, Jitka %A Ceral, Jiří %A Mateřánková, Markéta %A König, Petr %A Řiháček, Ivan %A Vysočanová, Petra %A Souček, Miroslav %A Filipovský, Jan %D 2018 %T Long-term relationship between unattended automated blood pressure and auscultatory BP measurements in hypertensive patients %U https://tandf.figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Long-term_relationship_between_unattended_automated_blood_pressure_and_auscultatory_BP_measurements_in_hypertensive_patients/7380509 %R 10.6084/m9.figshare.7380509.v1 %2 https://tandf.figshare.com/ndownloader/files/13649573 %K Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring %K attended office blood pressure %K BPTru device %K blood pressure measurement %K unattended automated blood pressure %X

Aims: Unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) has attracted more attention since SPRINT trial had been published. However, its long-term relationship to attended office blood pressure (AuscOBP) is not known.

Material and methods: Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in four Czech academic hypertension centers. All subjects attended four clinical visits three months apart. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; AuscOBP was measured three times with auscultatory method by the physician. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed within one week from the second clinical visit.

Results: Data on 112 subjects aged 65.6 ± 10.8 years with mean AuscOBP 128.2 ± 12.2/78.5 ± 10.3 mm Hg are reported. Across the four clinical visits, the uAutoOBP was by 10.1/3.7 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP and the mean difference was similar during all four visits (P≥.061). Both uAutoOBP and AuscOBP had similar intra-individual variability during study follow-up as demonstrated by similar intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, for systolic ICC = 0.50, for diastolic ICC = 0.72). However, the intra-individual variability of the systolic AuscOBP and uAutoOBP difference was high as demonstrated by low ICCs for absolute (ICC = 0.17 [95%CI, 0.09 – 0.25]) and low κ coefficients for categorized differences (κ ≤ 0.16). The main determinant of AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was AuscOBP level. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM.

Conclusions: Although mean AuscOBP-uAutoOBP differences were relatively similar across the four clinical visits, intra-individual variability of this difference was high. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM. Therefore, uAutoOBP cannot be used as a replacement for ABPM.

%I Taylor & Francis