Comparison of 3 Devices for 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in a Nonclinical Environment Through a Randomized Trial

Abstract Background The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends the use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as part of screening and diagnosis of hypertension. The optimal ABPM device for population-based surveys is unknown. Methods We compared the proportion of valid blood...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of hypertension 2020-11, Vol.33 (11), p.1021-1029
Hauptverfasser: Nwankwo, Tatiana, Coleman King, Sallyann M, Ostchega, Yechiam, Zhang, Guangyu, Loustalot, Fleetwood, Gillespie, Cathleen, Chang, Tiffany E, Begley, Elin B, George, Mary G, Shimbo, Daichi, Schwartz, Joseph E, Muntner, Paul, Kronish, Ian M, Hong, Yuling, Merritt, Robert
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends the use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as part of screening and diagnosis of hypertension. The optimal ABPM device for population-based surveys is unknown. Methods We compared the proportion of valid blood pressure (BP) readings, mean awake and asleep BP readings, differences between awake ABPM readings and initial standardized BP readings, and sleep experience among three ABPM devices. We randomized a convenience sample of 365 adults to 1 of 3 ABPM devices: Welch Allyn Mobil-O-Graph (WA), Sun Tech Classic Oscar2 (STO) and Spacelabs 90227 (SL). Participants completed sleep quality questionnaires on the nights before and during ABPM testing. Results The proportions of valid BP readings were not different among the 3 devices (P > 0.45). Mean awake and asleep systolic BP were significantly higher for STO device (WA vs. STO vs. SL: 126.65, 138.09, 127.44 mm Hg; 114.34, 120.34, 113.13 mm Hg; P < 0.0001 for both). The difference between the initial average standardized mercury systolic BP readings and the ABPM mean awake systolic BP was larger for STO device (WA vs. STO. vs. SL: –5.26, –16.24, –5.36 mm Hg; P < 0.0001); diastolic BP mean differences were ~ –6 mm Hg for all 3 devices (P = 0.6). Approximately 55% of participants reported that the devices interfered with sleep; however, there were no sleep differences across the devices (P > 0.4 for all). Conclusion Most of the participants met the threshold of 70% valid readings over 24 hours. Sleep disturbance was common but did not interfere with completion of measurement in most of the participants.
ISSN:0895-7061
1941-7225
DOI:10.1093/ajh/hpaa117