ABSTRACT
High blood pressure (BP) or hypertension is a significant risk factor for the global burden of cardiovascular diseases. Home blood pressure measurements (HBPM) have been recommended for hypertension diagnosis, treatment initiation and medication titration, but guidelines for the number of measurements and duration are inconsistent. This study compared the accuracy of 3 home BP measurements per day for seven days with 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements. We examined 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements (ABPM) and HBPM during-morning, afternoon, and evening each day for seven days in healthy community living volunteers. Standardized Bland-Altman scatterplots and limits of agreement (LOA) were used to assess absolute reliability and the variability of measurement biases. We used nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-tests to compare the mean (SD) of the devices. Correlations between HBPM and 24-hour ABPM measurements were statistically significant at p<0.05. The high correlation coefficient (r=0.75) was observed between the systolic BP retrieved from two devices compared to moderate correlation (r=0.46) among diastolic BP. A significant difference was found for systolic BP (P<0.05) between the HBPM and ABPM but was non-significant for diastolic BP (P>0.05). In Bland-Altman plots, the LOA between HBPM and ABPM was 0.07-26.23 mmHg for SBP and 11.24 -16.20 mmHg for DBP. The overall mean difference (bias) in SBP and DBP was 13.08 and 2.48, respectively. Our results suggest that HBPM three times per day for seven days can potentially be used where ABPM is unavailable. Further studies in a diverse group of people with hypertension are needed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the National Heart Foundation of Australia and NHMRC
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:
All participants provided written informed consent prior to data collection. The study protocol was approved by the Deakin University Faculty of Health Human Ethics Advisory Group (HEAG-H 135_2017).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
All data in the present study are available online at https://data.jmir.org/2020/1/e22436/authors
