Journal of hypertension · 2016
Threshold for diagnosing hypertension by automated office blood pressure using random sample population data.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wohlfahrt Peter, Cífková Renata, Movsisyan Narine, Kunzová Šárka, Lešovský Jiří, Homolka Martin, Soška Vladimír, Bauerová Hana, Lopez-Jimenez Francisco, Sochor Ondřej
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Manual office blood pressure (BP) is still recommended for diagnosing hypertension. However, its predictive value is decreased by errors in measurement technique and the white-coat effect. The errors can be eliminated by automated office BP (AOBP) measurement taking multiple readings with the participant resting quietly alone. Therefore, use of AOBP in clinical practice requires a threshold value for hypertension diagnosis. The aim of the present study was to determine an AOBP threshold corresponding to the 140/90 mmHg manual office BP using data from a large random population sample.
METHODS: In 2145 participants (mean age 47.3 ± 11.3 years) randomly selected from a Brno population aged 25-64 years, BP was measured using manual mercury and automated office sphygmomanometers.
RESULTS: Manual SBP (mean difference 6.39 ± 9.76 mmHg) and DBP (mean difference 2.50 ± 6.54 mmHg) were higher than the automated BP. According to polynomial regression, automated systole of 131.06 (95% confidence interval 130.43-131.70) and diastole of 85.43 (95% confidence interval 85.03-85.82) corresponded to the manual BP of 140/90 mmHg. Using this cut-off, the white-coat hypertension was present in 24% of participants with elevated manual BP, whereas 10% had masked hypertension and 11% masked uncontrolled hypertension. In individuals with masked uncontrolled hypertension, only AOBP was associated with the urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, whereas there was no association with manual BP.
CONCLUSION: AOBP of 131/85 mmHg corresponds to the manual BP of 140/90 mmHg. This value may be used as a threshold for diagnosing hypertension using AOBP. However, outcome-driven studies are required to confirm this threshold.
METHODS: In 2145 participants (mean age 47.3 ± 11.3 years) randomly selected from a Brno population aged 25-64 years, BP was measured using manual mercury and automated office sphygmomanometers.
RESULTS: Manual SBP (mean difference 6.39 ± 9.76 mmHg) and DBP (mean difference 2.50 ± 6.54 mmHg) were higher than the automated BP. According to polynomial regression, automated systole of 131.06 (95% confidence interval 130.43-131.70) and diastole of 85.43 (95% confidence interval 85.03-85.82) corresponded to the manual BP of 140/90 mmHg. Using this cut-off, the white-coat hypertension was present in 24% of participants with elevated manual BP, whereas 10% had masked hypertension and 11% masked uncontrolled hypertension. In individuals with masked uncontrolled hypertension, only AOBP was associated with the urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, whereas there was no association with manual BP.
CONCLUSION: AOBP of 131/85 mmHg corresponds to the manual BP of 140/90 mmHg. This value may be used as a threshold for diagnosing hypertension using AOBP. However, outcome-driven studies are required to confirm this threshold.