ABSTRACT
Importance Clinicians use blood pressure (BP) readings obtained during clinical encounters to detect hypertension and determine the adequacy of treatment. Variations in office-based BP measurements may obscure a hypertension diagnosis or overwhelm a signal of treatment response.
Objectives To quantify visit-to-visit variability (VVV) in BP values and its association with patient factors in real-world practice.
Design, Setting and, Participants Retrospective cohort analysis of adult patients (age ≥18 years) with at least two outpatient visits in the Yale-New Haven Health System between January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2018.
Main Outcome and Measures Patient-level measures of VVV included standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) of a given patient’s BP across visits. We introduced a metric to determine the VVV between any two visits (dyad) to characterize the BP information that clinicians have as they formulate their recommendations. Dyad-level measures of VVV included difference, absolute difference, standardized difference, and absolute standardized difference between the two visits of a dyad.
Results The study population included 537,245 adults, with a total of 7,721,864 BP measurements. The mean age was 53.4 years (SD of 19.0), 60.4% were women, 69.4% were non-Hispanic White, and 18.1% with hypertension treatment. At the patient level, the mean intra-individual SD and CV were 10.6 mmHg and 0.08 mmHg. At the dyad level, the mean difference, absolute difference, standardized difference, and absolute standardized difference were -0.7 mmHg, 11.6 mmHg, 0 mmHg, and 0.09 mmHg, respectively. Given the observed VVV, if an antihypertensive medication truly reduced a patient’s SBP by 10 mmHg (the average BP-lowering effect reported in previous review), clinicians would expect to observe a reduction of SBP < 5mm Hg at the next visit 36.9% of the time. In the multivariable linear regression model, only 2% of the variance in absolute standardized difference was attributable to patient characteristics.
Conclusions and Relevance The large VVV poses challenges for diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of patients with hypertension based on BP readings in outpatient settings, supporting recent guidelines recommending home BP monitoring and ambulatory BP monitoring as out-of-office alternatives to establish diagnosis of hypertension and BP control.
Question What is the visit-to-visit variability (VVV) in blood pressure (BP) values and its association with patient factors in real-world practice?
Findings In this retrospective cohort analysis that included 537,245 adults and 7,721,864 office-based BP measurements from a large health system, marked VVV was observed in BP values and the median absolute change between two consecutive visits was about 12 mmHg. The VVV was not significantly associated with patient demographic and clinical characteristics.
Meaning The large VVV poses challenges for diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of patients with hypertension based on BP readings in outpatient settings, supporting recent guidelines recommending home BP monitoring and ambulatory BP monitoring as out-of-office alternatives to establish a new diagnosis of hypertension and BP control.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Lu is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K12HL138037) and the Yale Center for Implementation Science. She was a recipient of a research agreement, through Yale University, from the Shenzhen Center for Health Information for work to advance intelligent disease prevention and health promotion. Dr. Khera receives support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the award K23HL153775, outside of the submitted work. In the past three years, Dr. Krumholz received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, IBM Watson Health, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing. He is a co-founder of Refactor Health and HugoHealth and had grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medtronic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information. The other co-authors report no potential competing interests.
Funding Statement
None.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional review board approval for this study was obtained through the Yale University Human Investigation Committee.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Dr. Lu, Dr. Linderman, and Mr. Liu had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Technical appendix, statistical code, and dataset available from the corresponding author.
