STATE-OF-THE-ART PAPER
Home Blood Pressure Measurement
A Systematic Review
Willem J. Verberk, MSc*,
Abraham A. Kroon, MD, PhD*,
Alfons G.H. Kessels, MD, MSc and
Peter W. de Leeuw, MD, PhD*,*
* Department of Medicine, University Hospital Maastricht and Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht, the Netherlands
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Technology Assessment, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands
Manuscript received March 21, 2005;
revised manuscript received May 2, 2005,
accepted May 16, 2005.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Prof. Dr. Peter W. de Leeuw, Department of Medicine, University Hospital Maastricht, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands (Email: p.deleeuw{at}intmed.unimaas.nl).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
The purpose of this research was to review the literature on home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) and to provide recommendations regarding HBPM assessment. Observational studies on HBPM, published after 1992, as identified by PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane literature searches were reviewed. Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: 1) self-measurements had been performed with validated devices; 2) measurement procedures were described in sufficient detail; and 3) papers clearly explained how final HBPM results were calculated upon which conclusions and/or treatment decisions were based. Office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) yields higher blood pressure values than HBPM. For systolic blood pressure, differences between OBPM and HBPM increase with age and the height of office pressure. Differences also tend to be greater in men than in women and greater in patients without than in those with antihypertensive treatment. Furthermore, HBPM can diagnose normotension with almost absolute certainty; it correlates better with target organ damage and cardiovascular mortality than OBPM, it enables prediction of sustained hypertension in patients with borderline hypertension, and it proves to be an appropriate tool for assessing drug efficacy. Despite some limitations and although more data are needed, HBPM is suitable for routine clinical practice.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | AAMI = Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation | | ABPM = ambulatory blood pressure measurement | | BHS = British Hypertension Society | | BP = blood pressure | | CI = confidence interval | | DBP = diastolic blood pressure | | ESH = European Society of Hypertension | | HBP(M) = home blood pressure (measurement) | | OBPM = office blood pressure measurement | | SBP = systolic blood pressure | | TOD = target organ damage |
|
Home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) has become increasingly popular and is now gaining more and more acceptance by patients and clinicians. Several factors can account for this phenomenon. First of all, reliable automatic devices for HBPM have become available, and their performance characteristics can easily be retrieved via the Internet (1). Secondly, HBPM is less liable to observer bias and the white coat effect than office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) (2). In addition, with HBPM more measurements can be obtained within a limited period of time. Finally, HBPM data correlate better with daytime values of ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) (3).
However, the introduction of HBPM into clinical practice has also faced us with new problems. These include questions such as: how many measurements are needed to estimate a patient’s usual blood pressure (BP), what are normal values for HBPM, how does antihypertensive treatment affect HBPM, and to what extent can HBPM predict prognosis? The intention of this review, therefore, is to evaluate current knowledge about HBPM to find answers to these questions. To this end, we performed a systematic review of the literature on HBPM.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Identification of papers.
We performed systematic searches of HBPM in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database. The search strategy used six key words in various combinations: BP, hypertension, self-measurement, home measurement, ambulatory measurement, and compliance. Additional studies were found from reference lists of identified articles and reviews.
Study selection.
Because the first protocol with guidelines for validation of BP monitoring devices dates back from July 1990 (4), we wanted to include in our review only those papers that have been published after that time. Allowing for some lag time before the guidelines were fully implemented, we took 1992 as the starting year for our literature search. Decisions on inclusion of studies into the systematic review were based on three criteria:
- 1) Self-measurements were performed with devices that have passed the validation protocols of the British Hypertension Society (BHS) (4), Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) (5), and/or European Society of Hypertension (ESH) (6);
- 2) HBPM or self-measurement procedures used were described in sufficient detail;
- 3) The methods section clearly explained how authors calculated from their original data the finally reported home blood pressure (HBP) results.
Two investigators screened the full text of all potentially relevant articles. When more than one paper by the same author or research group was available, these were included for analysis only when it was likely that a different patient sample had been used.
Data extraction.
Papers that fulfilled the selection criteria and provided both OBPM and HBPM data were collected. When multiple drug treatment studies were performed using the same population, only the results of the first study mentioned were used for analysis. Studies that combined subjects with and without antihypertensive drug treatment, without the possibility to distinguish both groups, were excluded for analysis.
Data synthesis.
To test for differences between OBPM and HBPM, we pooled the results weighted with inverse variances (direct pooling) (7). In case the variance was not reported, we imputed the highest variance of the study that was included. Changes in home and office BP, obtained before and after treatment, were compared conservatively by considering these outcomes as unpaired data. To investigate whether age and gender could explain heterogeneity in differences between OBPM and HBPM, we performed linear regression analysis with age and gender (as proportion of men) as independent variables and the difference between OBPM and HBPM as the dependent variable. All statistical calculations were performed using SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).
|
Results
|
|---|
How many measurements are needed?.
To determine the number of measurements that are needed to obtain a reliable estimate of a patient’s usual BP when applying HBPM, several studies assessed the reproducibility and/or accuracy of the technique (8–11). The results from these studies are summarized in Table 1. From all studies, which addressed the number of measurements required to obtain an accurate impression of BP for a period of at least one month (8–11), we may conclude that the minimum number of measurements should be two duplicates a day (twice in the morning and twice in the evening) for three consecutive days with exclusion of BP readings taken at the first day.
Upper limit of normal values.
Table 2 provides an overview of studies that have addressed the issue of normal values. Various methods were used to obtain normal values (12–18), namely:
- 1) Calculating the mean + two standard deviations for HBPM data in a population and to consider this as the upper limit of normal (normal distribution criterion) (14);
- 2) Computing the 95th percentile of the distribution of HBPM data in subjects who were normotensive on conventional sphygmomanometry and to consider every value above that percentile as abnormal (percentile criterion) (13–15);
- 3) Determining the self-recorded BP that corresponds to a conventional (office) BP of 140/90 mm Hg (correspondence [12–14,16–18] or regression criterion [13,14,18]).
- 4) Conducting a long-term follow-up trial in which normal values are based on the morbidity and mortality patterns from hypertension-related complications (16).
Taken together, the data from these studies suggest that the upper limit for normal HBPM values should be set at 135 mm Hg systolic and 85 mm Hg diastolic.
Differences between HBPM and OBPM.
A pooled analysis of untreated subjects in the studies (13,17,19–32) is listed in Table 3 and shows that the mean overall difference between OBPM and HBPM was 6.9 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.6 to 7.2, p < 0.001) for systolic BP (SBP), and 4.9 mm Hg (95% CI 4.7 to 5.1, p < 0.001) for diastolic BP (DBP). Differences between OBPM and HBPM increase with age for SBP but not for DBP (Fig. 1). Bland-Altman analysis of the data shows that the difference between OBPM and HBPM also increases significantly with higher SBP (Fig. 2) but not DBP. Finally, a higher percentage of men in a study population resulted in larger differences between OBPM and HBPM for SBP (p < 0.01).
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Differences between systolic (left) and diastolic (right) office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) and home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) as a function of age in patients without antihypertensive treatment. Results were derived from 18 studies with a total of 6,979 subjects (Table 3). The relationship was statistically significant for systolic pressure only (p = 0.036). The regression line was calculated for equal proportions of men and women, and studies were weighted for the number of subjects.
|
|
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Bland-Altman plots for the differences between systolic office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) and home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) as a function of the average of OBPM and HBPM in patients without (left) or with (right) antihypertensive treatment. Results were derived from the studies mentioned in Tables 3 and 4. The relationship was statistically significant for untreated subjects only (p = 0.007). Studies were weighted for the number of subjects.
|
|
Studies among treated subjects (20,21,24,26,28–35) are summarized in Table 4 and show a mean overall difference between OBPM and HBPM of 5.3 mm Hg (95% CI 5.1 to 5.6, p < 0.0001) for SBP, and 3.1 mm Hg (95% CI 2.9 to 3.3, p < 0.0001) for DBP. In this group no relationship of these differences with age, gender distribution, or the height of DBP emerged. Although differences tended to be greater with higher pressures for SBP (Fig. 2), the relationship failed to reach statistical significance. The OBPM-HBPM difference was significantly smaller in treated than in untreated patients.
HBPM in relation to antihypertensive drug treatment.
Table 5 presents the studies that investigated drug efficacy by using both OBPM and HBPM (21,24,26,29–32). After pooled analysis, differences in OBPM appeared to be 20.1 mm Hg (95% CI 19.6 to 20.7) and 13.6 mm Hg (95% CI 13.3 to 14.0) for SBP and DBP, respectively, while for HBPM differences were 13.9 mm Hg (95% CI 13.4 to 14.4) and 9.1 mm Hg (95% CI 8.8 to 9.4), respectively (Fig. 3). The falls in pressure after treatment were significantly larger for OBPM than for HBPM (p < 0.0001 for SBP and DBP).
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 Differences between pretreatment and treatment pressures for both office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) and home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) as derived from eight studies with a total of 3,256 subjects (Table 5). Results for systolic (closed symbols, S) and diastolic (open symbols, D) blood pressure are presented as the mean difference with the 95% confidence interval; OBPM differences were significantly greater than HBPM differences for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.001).
|
|
HBPM and cardiovascular outcome.
Several trials have addressed the relationship between home measurements and target organ damage (TOD) and found that HBPM correlated better with TOD, in particular left ventricular hypertrophy than OBPM (33,36). It correlated as well with left ventricular mass index as ABPM did (37). Moreover, HBPM appears to be a better prognostic indicator with respect to cardiovascular mortality (38,39) and cardiovascular events (39) than OBPM.
|
Discussion
|
|---|
How many measurements are needed?.
Recently, results from the Ohasama study (40) indicated that one should obtain as many measurements as possible, although with any number of measurements HBPM was already superior to OBPM in predicting future risk.
Because it is possible that BP at home differs from BP at work due to job stress or other factors, BP recorded at work might, in such situations, give a better indication of the overall BP value (10). Despite some discrepancies in the results with regard to morning and evening HBPM, the fact remains that the early morning surge has immense prognostic potential (41–44). For that reason, HBPM in the morning is probably more valuable as compared to evening HBPM in terms of assessing cardiovascular prognosis. On the other hand, Brook (45) showed that the accuracy of HBPM does not depend on a particular monitoring schedule parameter such as number of measurements per day, replications per measurement session, or total duration of home monitoring.
Taking all available information together, it seems that the minimum number of measurements should be two duplicates a day (twice in the morning and twice in the evening) for three consecutive days. Measurements on the first day are persistently higher than subsequent measurements, and for that reason the data from the first day should be discarded (9).
Upper limit of normal values.
Normal values for HBPM have been established on the basis of an international database composed by Thijs et al. (15). Because the 95th percentile method for normotensive subjects was used for obtaining normal values, these normal data were not directly dependent upon OBPM values. In our view, the proclamation of HBPM normal data according to OBPM values, as has been done in other studies, is not a priori justified because OBPM values are highly variable and subject to observer bias as well as the white coat effect.
Preferably, normal values should be based on prognostic studies such as those from Tsuji et al. (16), who defined hypertension as a BP value  137/84 mm Hg and normal BP as SBP <137 mm Hg and DBP between 66 and 83 mm Hg. Fortunately, these values are in line with the reference values from the international database (namely 137/85 mm Hg). In accordance with recent guidelines (46,47), it is fair to set the upper limit of normal values at 135 mm Hg systolic and 85 mm Hg diastolic.
Differences between OBPM and HBPM.
Our analysis shows that the difference in SBP between OBPM and HBPM in untreated patients tends to be larger in men than in women and to rise with age and the level of BP. However, whether age and the degree of hypertension are independent predictors of the difference between OBPM and HBPM cannot be derived from the available data. We further found that the difference between OBPM and HBPM is greater before than during antihypertensive treatment. Although the difference during treatment still tended to increase with the height of pressure, the relationship was no longer statistically significant. Differences in DBP were more or less constant, regardless of age, gender, severity of hypertension, or treatment status.
The most important clinical consequence of the above is that HBPM can largely eliminate the white coat effect, which is defined as an elevation of BP measured in the office compared to either ABPM or HBPM (48). Detection of the white coat effect is relevant to avoid overestimation of daily BP and unnecessary drug prescription. Because the white coat effect also increases with age (49) and is more related to untreated than to treated hypertension (50), HBPM seems to be particularly suitable to assess elderly people with hypertension. Although HBPM may not detect the same patients with the white coat effect as ABPM would (2), it serves at least the purpose of being a reasonable screening test for that phenomenon.
Still, a word of caution is in order because most studies that addressed HBPM in relation to OBPM used different devices for both methods; OBPM was usually assessed with manual mercury sphygmomanometers (auscultatory method), which carries the risk of observer bias due to, for example, hearing loss, impaired ability to react, and digit preference (31,51,52). On the other hand, HBPM was commonly performed with automatic or semiautomatic devices that used an oscillometric method to record the pressure. This may at least in part explain some of the differences between OBPM and HBPM. Additionally, most studies from Table 5 that addressed drug efficacy using HBPM and OBPM showed a larger decline in OBPM after treatment as compared with HBPM. Such differences could be due to the physician expecting a decline in BP after drug administration. This assumption is supported by the study of Vaur et al. (31) who showed a decline in OBPM after treatment while the patient was using a placebo whereas this effect was absent in HBPM. Therefore, in order to exclude measurement bias in future clinical trials, OBPM and HBPM should be performed with the same device, preferably an automatic one (53). In the ongoing Home versus Office blood pressure MEasurements: Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study (HOMERUS) trial (54), this approach has already been adopted.
HBPM and assessment of drug efficacy.
The possibility of HBPM to obtain multiple measurements within a relatively short period of time makes the technique particularly useful to determine drug efficacy (21,30,32). As an index of efficacy, the morning-to-evening ratio has been introduced as an alternative for the "trough-to-peak ratio," which is used with ABPM (55). With respect to the morning-to-evening ratio, one assumes that if medication is taken at a 24-h interval, the trough is reached just before the new medication is taken after 24 h in the morning, while 12 h earlier in the evening, the full effect of the drug can be expected (the peak).
HBPM and cardiovascular prognosis.
Although only a few studies have addressed the relationship between HBPM and TOD, they are consistent in their results. Clearly, HBPM is superior to OBPM and comparable to ABPM in predicting cardiac as well as renal damage (33,36). As far as long-term cardiovascular prognosis is concerned, data also indicate that HBPM is the better predictor of outcome when compared to OBPM. For instance, the Ohasama study (38) clearly established a relationship between HBPM and mortality risk. When home BP values and screening BP values from this population study were simultaneously incorporated into a Cox model, only the average of multiple (more than three) home systolic BP values was significantly and strongly related to cardiovascular mortality risk. The average of the two initial home BP values was also better related to mortality risk than were the screening BP values. More recently, the same investigators presented their ten-year follow-up data (40), which indicated that the predictive value of HBP increases progressively with the number of measurements. When at least 14 measurements are obtained, HBPM shows a 35% increase in the risk of stroke per 10 mm Hg elevation in BP. Nevertheless, even if one considers only initial HBP values (one measurement), stroke risk is better predicted by HBPM than by OBPM.
Despite some limitations of this study (other risk factors were ignored in the analysis, there was a higher overall mortality from cerebrovascular disease in Ohasama than in the rest of the country, and an arbitrarily chosen end point was used for determining acceptable risk), this is an important long-term follow-up study linking HBPM to cerebrovascular risk. The study also suggested that the correlation between home DBP and mortality is nonlinear (U-shaped curve) and that a very low DBP may be associated with increased mortality as well.
Conclusions.
Although more research is needed, several arguments already speak in favor of implementing HBPM into daily clinical practice. First of all, it eliminates the white coat effect and allows identification of patients with white coat hypertension. Second, it offers the possibility to obtain multiple readings under standardized conditions with little measurement variability. This increases knowledge of usual BP value in such conditions as borderline hypertension (28,56), type II diabetes mellitus (57,58), and older age (35,59–61). In addition, it allows better judgment of drug efficacy (21,24,26,29–32). Third, HBPM data correlate better than OBPM values with TOD, in particular left ventricular hypertrophy (33,36,37,58), with cardiovascular events (39), and with cardiovascular mortality (38,39). The predictive power of HBPM increases with the number of measurements and should perhaps be based on the average of at least 14 data points (40). Finally, HBPM may increase patients’ awareness of hypertension and compliance with drug treatment, potentially leading to reduced mortality and costs (62). In line with this supposition, a recent meta-analysis by Cappuccio et al. (63) showed that subjects using HBPM had lower BP values and were more likely to achieve their target BP value than subjects without HBPM.
In practice, many factors can influence HBPM. It is important, therefore, that established guidelines for procedures of self-monitoring of BP (64,65) are meticulously followed and that patients receive extensive instruction from a well-trained nurse or physician (66). Recordings must be taken with devices (67–75) that have been validated according to AAMI (5), BHS (4), and/or ESH (6) standards (Table 6). Moreover, BP devices should be memory-equipped in order to prevent reporting bias (76). Because manual devices, which require the patient to inflate the cuff and/or to determine BP himself, are subject to the same forms of measurement bias as office recordings, automated ones are to be preferred.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 6. List of Blood Pressure Monitors Suitable for Self-Measurement and Validated According to BHS, AAMI, and/or ESH criteria
|
|
Notwithstanding all advantages, HBPM also has some limitations. First of all, the HBPM technique, like ABPM, is less suitable in subjects with large arm sizes for whom no appropriate cuff in available, in those with an irregular pulse, or when there is reason to suspect vascular stiffening. Indeed, almost all validated HBPM devices employ the oscillometric technique, which may yield results that differ substantially from BP readings taken with a sphygmomanometer. This is particularly true in elderly patients and those with diabetes (77,78). Second, ABPM is still superior for measuring BP at predetermined times without any influence of the patient, to record BP during daily routine or during the night and to ascertain whether a drug is effective during the early morning surge. However, because HBPM is less expensive and less inconvenient for the patient, it can serve as a reliable addition to OBPM, although the latter should not be abandoned yet (23,79). Moreover, there is already an HBPM device available that is able to measure BP during sleep at predetermined times (80). Third, HBPM should not be recommended for subjects with pre-eclampsia because both the auscultatory and oscillometric methods have shown to be inappropriate in this situation (81). Fourth, it should be realized that certain aspects of HBPM need further research, especially because the recently published Treatment of hypertension based on Home or Office blood Pressure (THOP) trial showed that adjustment of antihypertensive treatment based on HBPM instead of OBPM led to less intensive drug treatment but also to less BP control (82). Therefore, until this subject has been investigated further, treatment decisions based on HBPM alone should be taken cautiously. Finally, because regular subjects require at least 20 min of instruction (28) before understanding the procedure, HBPM may not be appropriate for every patient because of its complexity. Additionally, HBPM should also be discouraged when it causes anxiety or induces self-modification of treatment.
Still, due to an ever-increasing workload for physicians, it seems to be only a matter of time before people measure their BP at home and transmit it through the internet to the hospital, instead of visiting the doctor at the clinic. This modern approach of hypertension management is already put into practice at the HOMED-BP trial (83).7
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
Supported by grant 945-01-043 from ZONMW (Den Haag).
|
References
|
|---|
1. British Hypertension Society. Available at: www.bhsoc.org. Accessed July 17, 2005.
2. Stergiou GS, Zourbaki AS, Skeva II, Mountokalakis TD. White coat effect detected using self-monitoring of blood pressure at homecomparison with ambulatory blood pressure. Am J Hypertens 1998;11:820-827.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
3. Omvik P, Gerhardsen G. The Norwegian office-, home-, and ambulatory blood pressure study (NOHA) Blood Press 2003;12:211-219.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. O’Brien E, Petrie J, Littler W, et al. The British Hypertension Society protocol for the evaluation of automated and semi-automated blood pressure measuring devices with special reference to ambulatory systems J Hypertens 1990;8:607-619.[Web of Science][Medline]
5. White WB, Berson AS, Robbins C, et al. National standard for measurement of resting and ambulatory blood pressures with automated sphygmomanometers Hypertension 1993;21:504-509.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. O’Brien E, Pickering T, Asmar R, et al. Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for Validation of Blood Pressure Measuring Devices in Adults Blood Press Monit 2002;7:3-17.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Rothman KJ. Modern Epidemiology. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company; 1986.
8. Celis H, De Cort P, Fagard R, Thijs L, Staessen JA. For how many days should blood pressure be measured at home in older patients before steady levels are obtained? J Hum Hypertens 1997;11:673-677.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
9. Stergiou GS, Skeva II, Zourbaki AS, Mountokalakis TD. Self-monitoring of blood pressure at homehow many measurements are needed?. J Hypertens 1998;16:725-731.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
10. Garcia-Vera MP, Sanz J. How many self-measured blood pressure readings are needed to estimate hypertensive patients’ "true" blood pressure? J Behav Med 1999;22:93-113.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
11. Imai Y, Satoh H, Nagai K, et al. Characteristics of a community-based distribution of home blood pressure in Ohasama in northern Japan J Hypertens 1993;11:1441-1449.[Web of Science][Medline]
12. de Gaudemaris R, Chau NP, Mallion JM, Groupe de la Mesure, French Society of Hypertension Home blood pressurevariability, comparison with office readings and proposal for reference values. J Hypertens 1994;12:831-838.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Stergiou GS, Thomopoulou GC, Skeva II, Mountokalakis TD. Home blood pressure normalcythe Didima study. Am J Hypertens 2000;13:678-685.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
14. Thijs L, Staessen JA, Celis H, et al. Reference values for self-recorded blood pressurea meta-analysis of summary data. (see comments) Arch Intern Med 1998;158:481-488.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Thijs L, Staessen JA, Celis H, et al. The international database of self-recorded blood pressures in normotensive and untreated hypertensive subjects Blood Press Monit 1999;4:77-86.[Medline]
16. Tsuji I, Imai Y, Nagai K, et al. Proposal of reference values for home blood pressure measurementprognostic criteria based on a prospective observation of the general population in Ohasama, Japan. Am J Hypertens 1997;10:409-418.[Web of Science][Medline]
17. Weisser B, Grüne S, Burger R, et al. The Dübendorf studya population-based investigation on normal values of blood pressure self-measurement. J Hum Hypertens 1994;8:227-231.[Web of Science][Medline]
18. Mancia G, Sega R, Bravi C, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure normalityresults from the PAMELA study. J Hypertens 1995;13:1377-1390.[Web of Science][Medline]
19. Bobrie G, Day M, Tugaye A, Chatellier G, Menard J. Self blood pressure measurement at home. Clin Exp Hypertens 193;15:1109–19..
20. Cuspidi C, Michev I, Meani S, et al. Left ventricular hypertrophy in treated hypertensive patients with good blood pressure control outside the clinic, but poor clinic blood pressure control J Hypertens 2003;21:1575-1581.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
21. Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Gomez-Pajuelo C, Gabriel R, de La Figuera M, Moreno E, Verapamil-Frequency Research Group Effect of verapamil on home self-measurement of blood pressure and heart rate by hypertensive patientsVerapamil-Frequency Research Group. Blood Press Monit 2000;5:23-30.[Web of Science][Medline]
22. Hond ED, Celis H, Fagard R, et al. Self-measured versus ambulatory blood pressure in the diagnosis of hypertension J Hypertens 2003;21:717-722.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
23. Jula A, Puukka P, Karanko H. Multiple clinic and home blood pressure measurements versus ambulatory blood pressure monitoring Hypertension 1999;34:261-266.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Leeman MJ, Lins RL, Sternon JE, Huberlant BC, Fassotte CE. Effect of antihypertensive treatment on office and self-measured blood pressurethe Autodil study. J Hum Hypertens 2000;14:525-529.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25. Mancia G, Sega R, Milesi C, Cesana G, Zanchetti A. Blood-pressure control in the hypertensive population Lancet 1997;349:454-457.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26. Mengden T, Binswanger B, Spuhler T, Weisser B, Vetter W. The use of self-measured blood pressure determinations in assessing dynamics of drug compliance in a study with amlodipine once a day, morning versus evening J Hypertens 1993;11:1403-1411.[Web of Science][Medline]
27. Mengden T, Schwartzkopff B, Strauer BE. What is the value of home (self) blood pressure monitoring in patients with hypertensive heart disease? Am J Hypertens 1998;11:813-819.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
28. Nesbitt SD, Amerena JV, Grant E, et al. Home blood pressure as a predictor of future blood pressure stability in borderline hypertension. The Tecumseh study Am J Hypertens 1997;10:1270-1280.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
29. Ragot S, Genes N, Vaur L, Herpin D. Comparison of three blood pressure measurement methods for the evaluation of two antihypertensive drugsfeasibility, agreement, and reproducibility of blood pressure response. Am J Hypertens 2000;13:632-639.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
30. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Skeva II, Baibas NM, Kalkana CB, Mountokalakis TD. Assessment of drug effects on blood pressure and pulse pressure using clinic, home and ambulatory measurements J Hum Hypertens 2002;16:729-735.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
31. Vaur L, Dubroca II, Dutrey-Dupagne C, et al. Superiority of home blood pressure measurements over office measurements for testing antihypertensive drugs Blood Press Monit 1998;3:107-114.[Medline]
32. Zannad F, Vaur L, Dutrey-Dupagne C, et al. Assessment of drug efficacy using home self-blood pressure measurement: the SMART study. Self Measurement for the Assessment of the Response to Trandolapril J Hum Hypertens 1996;10:341-347.[Web of Science][Medline]
33. Tsunoda S, Kawano Y, Horio T, Okuda N, Takishita S. Relationship between home blood pressure and longitudinal changes in target organ damage in treated hypertensive patients Hypertens Res 2002;25:167-173.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
34. Campo C, Fernandez G, Gonzalez-Esteban J, Segura J, Ruilope LM. Comparative study of home and office blood pressure in hypertensive patients treated with enalapril/HCTZ 20/6 mgthe ESPADA study. Blood Press 2000;9:355-362.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
35. Mallion JM, Genes N, Vaur L, et al. Blood pressure levels, risk factors and antihypertensive treatmentslessons from the SHEAF study. J Hum Hypertens 2001;15:841-848.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
36. Mule G, Caimi G, Cottone S, et al. Value of home blood pressures as predictor of target organ damage in mild arterial hypertension J Cardiovasc Risk 2002;9:123-129.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
37. Shimada K, Kario K, Umeda Y, Hoshide S, Hoshide Y, Eguchi K. Early morning surge in blood pressure Blood Press Monit 2001;6:349-353.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
38. Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Tsuji I, et al. Home blood pressure measurement has a stronger predictive power for mortality than does screening blood pressure measurementa population-based observation in Ohasama, Japan. J Hypertens 1998;16:971-975.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
39. Bobrie G, Chatellier G, Genes N, et al. Cardiovascular prognosis of "masked hypertension" detected by blood pressure self-measurement in elderly treated hypertensive patients JAMA 2004;291:1342-1349.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40. Ohkubo T, Asayama K, Kikuya M, et al. How many times should blood pressure be measured at home for better prediction of stroke risk? Ten-year follow-up results from the Ohasama study J Hypertens 2004;22:1099-1104.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
41. Muller JE, Stone PH, Turi ZG, et al. Circadian variation in the frequency of onset of acute myocardial infarction N Engl J Med 1985;313:1315-1322.[Web of Science][Medline]
42. Muller JE, Ludmer PL, Willich SN, et al. Circadian variation in the frequency of sudden cardiac death Circulation 1987;75:131-138.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
43. Marler JR, Price TR, Clark GL, et al. Morning increase in onset of ischemic stroke Stroke 1989;20:473-476.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Kario K, Shimada K, Pickering TG. Clinical implication of morning blood pressure surge in hypertension J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2003;42(Suppl 1):S87-S91.[Medline]
45. Brook RD. Home blood pressureaccuracy is independent of monitoring schedules. Am J Hypertens 2000;13:625-631.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
46. Cifkova R, Erdine S, Fagard R, et al. Practice guidelines for primary care physicians2003 ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines. J Hypertens 2003;21:1779-1786.[CrossRef][Medline]
47. Williams B, Poulter NR, Brown MJ, et al. British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 2004 (BHS-IV)summary. BMJ 2004;328:634-640.[Free Full Text]
48. Pickering TG, Gerin W, Schwartz AR. What is the white-coat effect and how should it be measured? Blood Press Monit 2002;7:293-300.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
49. Mansoor GA, McCabe EJ, White WB. Determinants of the white-coat effect in hypertensive subjects J Hum Hypertens 1996;10:87-92.[Web of Science][Medline]
50. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Argyraki CK, Roussias LG, Mountokalakis TD. White coat effect in treated versus untreated hypertensive individualsa case-control study using ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens 2004;17:124-128.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
51. McManus RJ, Mant J, Hull MR, Hobbs FD. Does changing from mercury to electronic blood pressure measurement influence recorded blood pressure? An observational study Br J Gen Pract 2003;53:953-956.[Web of Science][Medline]
52. Bruce NG, Shaper AG, Walker M, Wannamethee G. Observer bias in blood pressure studies J Hypertens 1988;6:375-380.[Web of Science][Medline]
53. Myers MG. Blood pressure measurement and the guidelinesa proposed new algorithm for the diagnosis of hypertension. Blood Press Monit 2004;9:283-286.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
54. Verberk WJ, Kroon AA, Kessels AG, et al. Home versus Office blood pressure MEasurements: Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study: rationale and study design of the HOMERUS trial Blood Press 2003;12:326-333.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
55. Ménard J, Chatellier G, Day M, Vaur L. Self-measurement of blood pressure at home to evaluate drug effects by the troughpeak ratio. J Hypertens 1994;12:S21-S25.
56. Amerena J, Nesbitt S, Krause L, Grant E, Lu H, Julius S. Trends in left ventricular function over three years in the Tecumseh study Blood Press 1997;6:262-268.[Medline]
57. Masding MG, Jones JR, Bartley E, Sandeman DD. Assessment of blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetescomparison between home blood pressure monitoring, clinic blood pressure measurement and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Diabet Med 2001;18:431-437.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
58. Kamoi K, Miyakoshi M, Soda S, Kaneko S, Nakagawa O. Usefulness of home blood pressure measurement in the morning in type 2 diabetic patients Diabetes Care 2002;25:2218-2223.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
59. Sega R, Cesana G, Milesi C, Grassi G, Zanchetti A, Mancia G. Ambulatory and home blood pressure normality in the elderly. Data from the PAMELA population Hypertension 1997;30:1-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
60. Broege PA, James GD, Pickering TG. Management of hypertension in the elderly using home blood pressures Blood Press Monit 2001;6:139-144.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
61. Okumiya K, Matsubayashi K, Wada T, et al. A U-shaped association between home systolic blood pressure and four-year mortality in community-dwelling older men J Am Geriatr Soc 1999;47:1415-1421.[Web of Science][Medline]
62. Ashida T, Sugiyama T, Okuno S, Ebihara A, Fujii J. Relationship between home blood pressure measurement and medication compliance and name recognition of antihypertensive drugs Hypertens Res 2000;23:21-24.[Web of Science][Medline]
63. Cappuccio FP, Kerry SM, Forbes L, Donald A. Blood pressure control by home monitoringmeta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2004;329:145.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
64. Ramsay LE, Williams B, Johnston GD, et al. British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 1999summary. BMJ 1999;319:630-635.[Free Full Text]
65. Imai Y, Otsuka K, Kawano Y, et al. Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) guidelines for self-monitoring of blood pressure at home Hypertens Res 2003;26:771-782.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
66. Campbell NR, Milkovich L, Burgess E, McKay DW. Self-measurement of blood pressureaccuracy, patient preparation for readings, technique and equipment. Blood Press Monit 2001;6:133-138.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
67. Artigao LM, Llavador JJ, Puras A, et al. Evaluation and validation of Omron Hem 705 CP and Hem 706/711 monitors for self-measurement of blood pressure(in Spanish) Aten Primaria 2000;25:96-102.[Medline]
68. Cuckson AC, Reinders A, Shabeeh H, Shennan AH. Validation of the Microlife BP 3BTO-A oscillometric blood pressure monitoring device according to a modified British Hypertension Society protocol Blood Press Monit 2002;7:319-324.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
69. El Assaad MA, Topouchian JA, Asmar RG. Evaluation of two devices for self-measurement of blood pressure according to the international protocolthe Omron M5-I and the Omron 705IT. Blood Press Monit 2003;8:127-133.[Web of Science][Medline]
70. Golara M, Jones C, Randhawa M, Shennan AH. Inflationary oscillometric blood pressure monitoringvalidation of the OMRON-MIT. Blood Press Monit 2002;7:325-328.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
71. Longo D, Bertolo O, Toffanin G, Frezza P, Palatini P. Validation of the A&D UA-631 (UA-779 Life Source) device for self-measurement of blood pressure and relationship between its performance and large artery compliance Blood Press Monit 2002;7:243-248.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
72. Longo D, Toffanin G, Garbelotto R, Zaetta V, Businaro L, Palatini P. Performance of the UA-787 oscillometric blood pressure monitor according to the European Society of Hypertension protocol Blood Press Monit 2003;8:91-95.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
73. Naschitz JE, Loewenstein L, Lewis R, et al. Accuracy of the OMRON M4 automatic blood pressure measuring device J Hum Hypertens 2000;14:423-427.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
74. Rogoza AN, Pavlova TS, Sergeeva MV. Validation of A&D UA-767 device for the self-measurement of blood pressure Blood Press Monit 2000;5:227-231.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
75. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Poeta F, et al. Validation of the A&D UA-774 (UA-767Plus) device for self-measurement of blood pressure Blood Press Monit 2004;9:225-229.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
76. Mengden T, Hernandez Medina RM, Beltran B, Alvarez E, Kraft K, Vetter H. Reliability of reporting self-measured blood pressure values by hypertensive patients(see comments) Am J Hypertens 1998;11:1413-1417.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
77. van Popele NM, Bos WJ, de Beer NA, et al. Arterial stiffness as underlying mechanism of disagreement between an oscillometric blood pressure monitor and a sphygmomanometer Hypertension 2000;36:484-488.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
78. Raptis AE, Spring MW, Viberti G. Comparison of blood pressure measurement methods in adult diabetics Lancet 1997;349:175-176.[Web of Science][Medline]
79. Cuspidi C, Meani S, Salerno M, et al. Cardiovascular target organ damage in essential hypertensives with or without reproducible nocturnal fall in blood pressure J Hypertens 2004;22:273-280.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
80. Chonan K, Kikuya M, Araki T, et al. Device for the self-measurement of blood pressure that can monitor blood pressure during sleep Blood Press Monit 2001;6:203-205.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
81. Natarajan P, Shennan AH, Penny J, Halligan AW, de Swiet M, Anthony J. Comparison of auscultatory and oscillometric automated blood pressure monitors in the setting of preeclampsia Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1203-1210.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
82. Staessen JA, Den Hond E, Celis H, et al. Antihypertensive treatment based on blood pressure measurement at home or in the physician’s officea randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:955-964.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
83. Fujiwara T, Nishimura T, Ohkuko T, Imai Y. Rationale and design of HOMED-BP Studyhypertension objective treatment based on measurement by electrical devices of blood pressure study. Blood Press Monit 2002;7:77-82.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
L. S. Huff, L. Zittleman, L. DeAlleaume, J. Bernstein, R. Chavez, C. Sutter, W. G. LeBlanc, and B. Parnes
What Keeps Patients from Adhering to a Home Blood Pressure Program?
J Am Board Fam Med,
July 1, 2011;
24(4):
370 - 379.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. Powers, M. K. Olsen, V. A. Smith, R. F. Woolson, H. B. Bosworth, and E. Z. Oddone
Measuring Blood Pressure for Decision Making and Quality Reporting: Where and How Many Measures?
Ann Intern Med,
June 21, 2011;
154(12):
781 - 788.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. R. Krakoff
Implementing Home Blood Pressure Into Practice: What More Do We Need?
Hypertension,
June 1, 2011;
57(6):
1043 - 1044.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Mant and R. McManus
Measurement of blood pressure in primary care
BMJ,
February 7, 2011;
342(feb07_1):
d382 - d382.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Chausson, S. Olindo, P. Cabre, M. Saint-Vil, and D. Smadja
Five-Year Outcome of a Stroke Cohort in Martinique, French West Indies: Etude Realisee en Martinique et Centree sur l'Incidence des Accidents vasculaires cerebraux, Part 2
Stroke,
April 1, 2010;
41(4):
594 - 599.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J McManus, P. Glasziou, A. Hayen, J. Mant, P. Padfield, J. Potter, E. P Bray, and D. Mant
Blood pressure self monitoring: questions and answers from a national conference
BMJ,
December 22, 2008;
337(dec22_1):
a2732 - a2732.
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Ishikawa, D. J. Carroll, S. Kuruvilla, J. E. Schwartz, and T. G. Pickering
Changes in Home Versus Clinic Blood Pressure With Antihypertensive Treatments: A Meta-Analysis
Hypertension,
November 1, 2008;
52(5):
856 - 864.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. R. Krakoff
On Treatment Blood Pressures: Which Can Be Trusted, Home or Clinic?
Hypertension,
November 1, 2008;
52(5):
795 - 796.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. K. Bhattacharyya MD PhD, B. R. Shah MD PhD, and G. L. Booth MD MSc
Management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes: the 2008 Canadian Diabetes Association guidelines
Can. Med. Assoc. J.,
October 21, 2008;
179(9):
920 - 926.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. G. Pickering, N. H. Miller, G. Ogedegbe, L. R. Krakoff, N. T. Artinian, and D. Goff
Call to Action on Use and Reimbursement for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Joint Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association
Hypertension,
July 1, 2008;
52(1):
10 - 29.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. B. Green, A. J. Cook, J. D. Ralston, P. A. Fishman, S. L. Catz, J. Carlson, D. Carrell, L. Tyll, E. B. Larson, and R. S. Thompson
Effectiveness of Home Blood Pressure Monitoring, Web Communication, and Pharmacist Care on Hypertension Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial
JAMA,
June 25, 2008;
299(24):
2857 - 2867.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. J. Verberk, A. A. Kroon, J. W.M. Lenders, A. G.H. Kessels, G. A. van Montfrans, A. J. Smit, P.-H. M. van der Kuy, P. J. Nelemans, R. J.M.W. Rennenberg, D. E. Grobbee, et al.
Self-Measurement of Blood Pressure at Home Reduces the Need for Antihypertensive Drugs: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Hypertension,
December 1, 2007;
50(6):
1019 - 1025.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Conen, P. M Ridker, J. E Buring, and R. J Glynn
Risk of cardiovascular events among women with high normal blood pressure or blood pressure progression: prospective cohort study
BMJ,
September 1, 2007;
335(7617):
432 - 432.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. M. Kaplan
Treatment of Hypertension: Remaining Issues After the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial
Hypertension,
January 1, 2006;
47(1):
10 - 13.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods