Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) is better predictor of
arterial stiffness then manual office blood pressure (MOBP)

a 2014

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) is better predictor of arterial stiffness then manual office blood pressure (MOBP)

PLUHÁČEK, Zdeněk, Radka ŠTĚPÁNOVÁ, Jindřich FIALA, Petr DOBŠÁK, Francesco LOPEZ-JIMENEZ et. al.

Basic information

Original name

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) is better predictor of arterial stiffness then manual office blood pressure (MOBP)

Name in Czech

Automatizované měření krevního tlaku (AOBP) je lepším prediktorem tepenné tuhosti než klasické měření krevního tlaku (MOBP)

Authors

PLUHÁČEK, Zdeněk, Radka ŠTĚPÁNOVÁ, Jindřich FIALA, Petr DOBŠÁK, Francesco LOPEZ-JIMENEZ and Ondřej SOCHOR

Edition

ESC Congress 2014, Barcelona - Spain, 2014

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Konferenční abstrakt

Field of Study

30201 Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Country of publisher

Czech Republic

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Organization unit

Faculty of Medicine

Keywords in English

blood pressure bptru

Abstract

ORIG CZ

V originále

Introduction and aim: AOBP monitors allow measuring of blood pressure (BP) in ambulant setting without presence of medical staff with the accuracy near to 24h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The recommended cut-off point for defining hypertension using AOBP is the same as for awake ambulatory BP or home BP. Arterial stiffness is one of the markers of cardiovascular health and reflects subclinical target organ damage. Our aim was to compare the automated and manual BP values with measured equivalent of arterial stiffness. Methods: During 11 months we investigated 1101 people (47% male) aged 25-65 years (47.3 ± 11.4). We measured BP using sphygmomanometer according to the guidelines (10 minutes rest, average of 2nd and 3rd measurement), measurement was performed by a trained nurse. Then the volunteer was sent to a separate quiet room, where after 10 minutes of sitting, BP was measured automatically 5 times in 1 minute interval by AOBP monitor, during the measurement, the volunteer was resting alone on a chair. Equivalent of arterial stiffness (cardio-ankle vascular index) was measured using vascular screening system. Results: According to AOBP, resp. to MOBP there was 14.7 %, resp. 12.4 % hypertensive volunteers (BP>135/85 mmHg, resp. BP>140/90 mmHg). There was a significant difference between AOBP and MOBP (p<0.001). AOBP was lower than MOBP in the majority of people. Arterial stiffness correlated with systolic blood pressure in both AOBP and MOBP (R=0.415, p<0.001 resp. R=0.306, p<0.001), the relationship with diastolic blood pressure was weak (R=0.280, p<0.001, resp. R=0.217 p<0.001). Discussion and conclusion: There was a significant difference between AOBP and MOBP, which confirms, that any interaction with medical staff makes the volunteer`s BP higher, known as the white coat effect. CAVI correlates slightly stronger with AOBP then with MOBP, suggesting that AOBP is better predictor of arterial stiffness.

In Czech

Introduction and aim: AOBP monitors allow measuring of blood pressure (BP) in ambulant setting without presence of medical staff with the accuracy near to 24h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The recommended cut-off point for defining hypertension using AOBP is the same as for awake ambulatory BP or home BP. Arterial stiffness is one of the markers of cardiovascular health and reflects subclinical target organ damage. Our aim was to compare the automated and manual BP values with measured equivalent of arterial stiffness. Methods: During 11 months we investigated 1101 people (47% male) aged 25-65 years (47.3 ± 11.4). We measured BP using sphygmomanometer according to the guidelines (10 minutes rest, average of 2nd and 3rd measurement), measurement was performed by a trained nurse. Then the volunteer was sent to a separate quiet room, where after 10 minutes of sitting, BP was measured automatically 5 times in 1 minute interval by AOBP monitor, during the measurement, the volunteer was resting alone on a chair. Equivalent of arterial stiffness (cardio-ankle vascular index) was measured using vascular screening system. Results: According to AOBP, resp. to MOBP there was 14.7 %, resp. 12.4 % hypertensive volunteers (BP>135/85 mmHg, resp. BP>140/90 mmHg). There was a significant difference between AOBP and MOBP (p<0.001). AOBP was lower than MOBP in the majority of people. Arterial stiffness correlated with systolic blood pressure in both AOBP and MOBP (R=0.415, p<0.001 resp. R=0.306, p<0.001), the relationship with diastolic blood pressure was weak (R=0.280, p<0.001, resp. R=0.217 p<0.001). Discussion and conclusion: There was a significant difference between AOBP and MOBP, which confirms, that any interaction with medical staff makes the volunteer`s BP higher, known as the white coat effect. CAVI correlates slightly stronger with AOBP then with MOBP, suggesting that AOBP is better predictor of arterial stiffness.

Detailed Information on Publication Record