No abstract

We performed a randomized, single-visit, crossover study to compare the precision of a digital monitor and an aneroid monitor relative to a desktop mercury sphygmomanometer (DMS). Three blood pressure measurements per patient, one per device, were taken over 25 minutes. Of 99 patients, 95 had complete blood pressure data. Systolic blood pressures measured with the digital monitor were significantly different from those with the DMS (p<0.01). Thirty-four percent of systolic and 48% of diastolic pressures measured with the digital monitor were within +/- 5 mm Hg of the DMS. The aneroid monitor performed significantly better than the digital monitor, with 54% of systolic (p<0.01) and 58% of diastolic blood pressures within +/- 5 mm Hg of the DMS standard. Health care providers are encouraged to supervise patients' initial use of a home blood pressure monitor and calibrate readings against a standard mercury sphygmomanometer.

Office blood pressure measurement is the standard for assessing blood pressure control. Many patients, however, take their antihypertensive medication in the morning, so they are likely to have their office blood pressure measured during the maximal antihypertensive effect. It is therefore unknown whether patients deemed by office blood pressure to be controlled do in fact have 24h blood pressure control. The objectives of this study were to determine blood pressure control, including blood pressure control while the patients were awake and during the first 6 hours after awakening, by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in treated hypertensive patients deemed by office blood pressure measurements to be controlled. A total of 103 patients on a stable antihypertensive regimen and deemed to be controlled in terms of office blood pressure values (mean office blood pressure <140/90mmHg) were enrolled. Patients were stratified by cardiovascular risk status and the number of antihypertensive medications that they were taking. Seventy-eight out of 103 participants successfully completed ABPM. The mean ambulatory blood pressure was greater than 135/85mmHg and 140/90mmHg while awake for 37% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26-48%) and 23% (95% CI 14-32%) of all patients respectively. Forty-eight per cent (95% CI 33-63%) of patients taking monotherapy versus 25% (95% CI 11-39%) of patients on multiple antihypertensive medications were uncontrolled (P=0.039) using 135/85mmHg as the reference value. Thirty-one per cent (95% CI, 17-44%) of patients on monotherapy versus 14% (95% CI 3-25%) of patients on multiple antihypertensive medication were uncontrolled (P=0.064) using 140/90mmHg instead. These results demonstrate that a high number of patients deemed by office blood pressure to be under control do not have adequate blood pressure control based on ABPM.