4.5 Article

A proposed algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using automated office blood pressure measurement

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 28, 期 4, 页码 703-708

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328335d091

关键词

automated sphygmomanometers; blood pressure measurement; hypertension diagnosis

资金

  1. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario [ESA5745]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To validate an algorithm for the interpretation of automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement based upon data from untreated patients referred by physicians in the community for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Methods An algorithm for interpreting AOBP readings was developed taking into account the previously documented equivalence of AOBP and mean awake ambulatory BP (ABP; mmHg), which were each classified as optimum BP (<130/80), borderline BP (130-139/80-89) and hypertension (>= 140/90). This classification was applied to data derived from 254 untreated patients undergoing 24-h ABPM, AOBP and routine manual BP taken at the patient's own family physician's office. Results The mean awake ABP (135.3+/-12.4/81.0+/-10.2) was similar to the mean AOBP (132.6+/-17.4/80.0+/-11.1) with both values being significantly (P<0.001) lower than the routine manual BP (149.7+/-15.2/89.3+/-9.5). Of the 69 patients with a systolic AOBP at least 140, only five (7.3%) exhibited white-coat hypertension with a normal mean awake ambulatory systolic BP less than 130. Similarly, of the 47 patients with a diastolic AOBP at least 90, none had optimum BP (diastolic BP<80 mmHg on ABPM). White-coat hypertension was significantly (P=0.005/P=0.006) more prevalent for systolic/diastolic BP (22.1%/13.4%) when routine, manual BP readings were analysed. Conclusion In contrast to routine manual office BP, a diagnosis of hypertension by AOBP is unlikely to be associated with an optimum awake ABP. J Hypertens 28: 703-708 (C) 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据