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

Author:

Nwankwo Tatiana1,Coleman King Sallyann M2,Ostchega Yechiam1ORCID,Zhang Guangyu3,Loustalot Fleetwood2,Gillespie Cathleen2ORCID,Chang Tiffany E2,Begley Elin B2,George Mary G2,Shimbo Daichi4,Schwartz Joseph E5,Muntner Paul6,Kronish Ian M4,Hong Yuling2,Merritt Robert2

Affiliation:

1. Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA

2. Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

3. Division of Research and Methodology, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA

4. Department of Medicine, Center for Behavioral Cardiovascular Health, Columbia University, Medical Center, New York, New York, USA

5. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Applied Behavioral Medicine Research Institute, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA

6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Internal Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3