Comparison of Blood Pressure Measurements from Clinical Practice and a Research Study At Kaiser Permanente Southern California

Author:

Sanders Mark A1,Muntner Paul2,Wei Rong3,Shimbo Daichi4,Schwartz Joseph E45,Qian Lei3,Bowling C Barrett67,Cannavale Kimberly3,Harrison Teresa N3,Lustigova Eva3,Sim John J18,Reynolds Kristi13ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine , Pasadena, California , USA

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

3. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California , Pasadena, California , USA

4. Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center , New York, New York , USA

5. Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University , Stony Brook, New York , USA

6. Durham Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) , Durham, North Carolina , USA

7. Department of Medicine, Duke University , Durham, North Carolina , USA

8. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center , Los Angeles, California , USA

Abstract

Abstract Background Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential to identify and manage hypertension. Prior studies have reported a difference between BP measured in routine patient care and in research studies. We aimed to investigate the agreement between BP measured in routine care and research-grade BP in Kaiser Permanente Southern California, a large, integrated healthcare system with initiatives to standardize BP measurements during routine patient care visits. Methods We included adults ≥65 years old with hypertension, taking antihypertensive medication, and participating in the Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Older Adults (AMBROSIA) study in 2019–2021. Clinic BP from routine care visits was extracted from the electronic health record. Research-grade BP was obtained by trained AMBROSIA study staff via an automatic oscillometric device. The mean difference between routine care and research-grade BP, limits of agreement, and correlation were assessed. Results We included 309 participants (mean age 75 years; 54% female; 49% non-Hispanic white). Compared with measurements from routine care, mean research-grade systolic BP (SBP) was 0.1 mm Hg higher (95% CI: −1.5 to 1.8) and diastolic BP (DBP) was 0.4 mm Hg lower (95% CI: −1.6 to 0.7). Limits of agreement were −29 to 30 mm Hg for SBP and −21 to 20 mm Hg for DBP. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.33 to 0.51) for SBP and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.52) for DBP. Conclusions High within-person variation and moderate correlation were present between BP measured in routine care and following a research protocol suggesting the importance of standardized measurements.

Funder

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Internal Medicine

Reference16 articles.

1. Risk Factor Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017;GBD;Lancet,2017

2. Concordance between blood pressure in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial and in routine clinical practice;Drawz;JAMA Intern Med,2020

3. Implications of blood pressure measurement technique for implementation of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT);Agarwal;J Am Heart Assoc,2017

4. Validity of cardiovascular data from electronic sources: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis and HealthLNK;Ahmad;Circulation,2017

5. Comparison of automated clinical and research blood pressure measurements: implications for clinical practice and trial design;Tang;J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich),2018

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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