Unattended automatic blood pressure measurements vs conventional office readings in predicting hypertension-mediated organ damage.

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is a leading cardiovascular risk factor. Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is pivotal in hypertension diagnosis and management. Conventional office blood pressure measurements (OBPMs) are error‑prone, exacerbated by the white‑coat effect. Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement (UAOBPM) is emerging as an alternative, mitigating the white‑coat effect. However, its ability to predict hypertension‑mediated organ damage (HMOD) remains disputable.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares UAOBPM with OBPM in terms of their association with various types of HMOD, including left ventricular hypertrophy, left atrial enlargement, left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction, intima‑media complex thickening, microalbuminuria, and abnormal pulse wave velocity.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

A total of 219 hypertensive patients were recruited, interviewed, and examined. Subsequently, BP measurements were conducted in a randomized manner: 1) UAOBPM, after 5 minutes of solitary rest in an examination room, BP was automatically measured 3 times at 1‑minute intervals; 2) OBPM, after 5 minutes of rest, a physician performed 3 consecutive BP measurements at 1‑minute intervals. Subsequent evaluations aimed to detect HMOD and included echocardiography, carotid artery ultrasound, pulse wave velocity assessment, and laboratory tests.

RESULTS

UAOBP values were lower than the OBP ones (mean [SD], 124.7 [14.4] vs 128.2 [14.2] mm Hg; P <0.001 for systolic BP, and 73.3 [10.2] vs 75.2 [10.6] mm Hg; P <0.001 for diastolic BP). Correlation and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed no superiority of either method in predicting HMOD.

CONCLUSIONS

The UAOBPM did not prove superior to OBPM in predicting HMOD. Further research is warranted to determine the role of UAOBPM in clinical practice.