Current medical research and opinion · 2026
Reproducibility of blood pressure variability assessed by home blood pressure monitoring.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Guimarães-Neto Vanildo S, Bezerra Rodrigo, Feitosa Audes D M, Barbosa Romero, Mota-Gomes Marco A, Paiva Annelise M G, Barroso Weimar S, Miranda Roberto D, Barbosa Eduardo C D, Brandão Andréa A, Lima-Filho José L, Sposito Andrei C, Nadruz Wilson
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Although blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) derived from home BP monitoring (HBPM) is a recognized cardiovascular risk marker, limited data on its reproducibility hinder its clinical application. This study aimed to address this gap.
METHODS: We compared HBPM-derived BPV at two time points using three metrics [standard deviation (SDVar), coefficient of variation (CoV), and variability independent of the mean (VIM)] among 495 individuals not using antihypertensive medications (No-AH) (median time-span between HBPM exams = 392 [308-519] days) and 588 individuals using antihypertensive medications (AH) (time-span between HBPM exams = 400 [319-510] days).
RESULTS: No significant changes were observed across the time points in systolic HBPM-derived BPV metrics: SDVar (8.55 ± 3.14 vs. 8.71 ± 3.52 in No-AH; 9.67 ± 3.62 vs. 9.50 ± 3.47 in AH), CoV (7.01 ± 2.47 vs. 7.10 ± 2.65 in No-AH; 7.65 ± 2.77 vs. 7.57 ± 2.62 in AH), and VIM (5.76 ± 2.10 vs. 5.87 ± 2.35 in No-AH; 6.29 ± 2.34 vs. 6.18 ± 2.24 in AH) (all p >.05). Similarly, diastolic HBPM-derived BPV metrics remained stable between the time points: SDVar-DBP (5.65 ± 2.32 vs. 5.62 ± 2.33 in No-AH; 5.99 ± 2.50 vs. 5.90 ± 2.37 in AH), CoV-DBP (7.26 ± 3.03 vs. 7.24 ± 3.13 in No-AH; 7.66 ± 3.20 vs. 7.63 ± 3.06 in AH) and VIM-DBP (4.78 ± 1.96 vs. 4.75 ± 1.97 in No-AH; 4.64 ± 1.93 vs. 4.58 ± 1.83 in AH) (all p >.05). However, the test-re-test correlation of all HBPM-derived BPV metrics was only modest (r ≈ .27-.45), revealing substantial intra-individual variability. In addition, similar results were obtained in an alternative sample of 498 individuals (265 using AH and 233 not using AH) who underwent OBP and HBPM measurements at four different time points.
CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that BPV parameters derived from HBPM had high reproducibility at the population level, but limited reproducibility at the individual level.
METHODS: We compared HBPM-derived BPV at two time points using three metrics [standard deviation (SDVar), coefficient of variation (CoV), and variability independent of the mean (VIM)] among 495 individuals not using antihypertensive medications (No-AH) (median time-span between HBPM exams = 392 [308-519] days) and 588 individuals using antihypertensive medications (AH) (time-span between HBPM exams = 400 [319-510] days).
RESULTS: No significant changes were observed across the time points in systolic HBPM-derived BPV metrics: SDVar (8.55 ± 3.14 vs. 8.71 ± 3.52 in No-AH; 9.67 ± 3.62 vs. 9.50 ± 3.47 in AH), CoV (7.01 ± 2.47 vs. 7.10 ± 2.65 in No-AH; 7.65 ± 2.77 vs. 7.57 ± 2.62 in AH), and VIM (5.76 ± 2.10 vs. 5.87 ± 2.35 in No-AH; 6.29 ± 2.34 vs. 6.18 ± 2.24 in AH) (all p >.05). Similarly, diastolic HBPM-derived BPV metrics remained stable between the time points: SDVar-DBP (5.65 ± 2.32 vs. 5.62 ± 2.33 in No-AH; 5.99 ± 2.50 vs. 5.90 ± 2.37 in AH), CoV-DBP (7.26 ± 3.03 vs. 7.24 ± 3.13 in No-AH; 7.66 ± 3.20 vs. 7.63 ± 3.06 in AH) and VIM-DBP (4.78 ± 1.96 vs. 4.75 ± 1.97 in No-AH; 4.64 ± 1.93 vs. 4.58 ± 1.83 in AH) (all p >.05). However, the test-re-test correlation of all HBPM-derived BPV metrics was only modest (r ≈ .27-.45), revealing substantial intra-individual variability. In addition, similar results were obtained in an alternative sample of 498 individuals (265 using AH and 233 not using AH) who underwent OBP and HBPM measurements at four different time points.
CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that BPV parameters derived from HBPM had high reproducibility at the population level, but limited reproducibility at the individual level.