Within-visit Blood Pressure Variability in Children and Adolescents in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2020)

Sandeep K Riar, Scott Gillespie, Andrew M South
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.14.24312023

Abstract

Background It is assumed that BP decreases with repeat measurements and multiple readings are recommended. There is limited information about within-visit BP variability (BPV) in healthy children.

Methods We used NHANES data (2013-2020) to measure BPV in subjects 8-17 years old with three BP readings. During 2013 to 2016, auscultatory BP was obtained (manual protocol, MP). Subsequently, oscillometric BP was measured (automated protocol, AP). We excluded subjects with diastolic BP ‘zero’.

Results We included a total 5656 subjects with 3365 (59.5%) in the MP and 2291 (40.5%) in the AP group. A ΔBP (individual-level difference between the highest and lowest of three BP readings) ≥5 mmHg was noted in 49.1% and 60.7% subjects for systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) respectively. A ΔDBP ≥10 mmHg and DBP average real variability ≥10 mmHg was twice as common in the MP than AP group. A ΔBP ≥20 mmHg was noted in 1.3% and 4.4% subjects for SBP and DBP respectively. The first SBP and DBP reading was ≥5 mmHg higher or lower than the averaged second and third SBP and DBP readings in 24.9% and 34.5% of subjects respectively. The first SBP and DBP reading was the highest of three BP readings in 44.2% and 42.4% subjects respectively.

Conclusions There is significant BPV in children and adolescents. Diastolic BPV is more common in MP than AP groups. Initial BP is not always the highest and inclusion of second and third BP reading may be more representative of patient’s actual BP.

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is a major cause of premature death worldwide, and children with high blood pressure (BP) have increased risk of elevated BP in adulthood.1,2 Accurate BP measurement is critical as a 5-mmHg difference in systolic BP (SBP) could lead to hypertension misdiagnosis in 84 million people worldwide.3 The deleterious impact of erroneous BP measurement is recognized, however even an accurate single BP reading is inadequate to diagnose hypertension.4 BP is a continuous variable that changes in response to endogenous factors and exogenous stimuli.3 Physiologic BP variability (BPV) in normotensive individuals allows for homeostasis.5 Multiple BP readings are recommended at each encounter as it is widely believed that the first BP reading will be higher than subsequent BP readings from ‘stress response/alerting reaction’, accommodation effect, regression to the mean, and higher inflation pressure with the first automated BP measurement.6–10

However, guidelines vary in the recommended number of BP readings and inclusion of the first reading. While adult guidelines recommend the average of 2–3 BP readings at each visit, pediatric hypertension diagnosis requires averaging the 2nd and 3rd BP readings and some use the lowest of three BP measurements.11–14 In real life, typically a single BP reading is obtained, likely from time and staff constraints and perhaps limited awareness of guidelines.15–18 The failure to obtain multiple BP readings may have significant implications. In adults, initial SBP reading was 12.7 mmHg higher compared to the average of three SBP readings.15 Notably, in adults and adolescents, the threshold BP for hypertension is 10 mmHg and 1 mmHg higher than normal SBP and diastolic BP (DBP) respectively (130 vs. 120 mmHg for SBP; ≥80 vs. <80 mmHg for DBP).11,19 However, in younger children, the difference is only about 4 mmHg and 3 mmHg respectively (95th percentile vs. 90th percentile).11,20 International BP device validation guidelines allow a maximum 5-mmHg difference between test and reference BP readings as one of the criteria.10 Office BP monitoring is indispensable to hypertension management and available studies of short-term BPV describe its impact on hypertension diagnosis but there is scant data on individual level within-visit BPV in healthy children. As compared to one BP reading, the use of two or three BP readings reduced BP classification in 6-9% of pediatric patients and 34% of adults.14,21,22 A study of within-visit BPV in Australian children noted mean SBP change of 6.7 mmHg between successive BP readings; however, the study included only two automated BP readings in the majority.23

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) examines a nationally representative sample of about 5,000 civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. persons each year and is conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. The BP protocol stipulates obtaining three BP readings within a single encounter for all participants 8 years and older.24 The objective of our study was to use pediatric data from NHANES as a convenience sample to: (1) describe variability of three BP readings; (2) compare the initial BP reading with the average of second and third BP readings and the average of all three BP readings; and (3) compare whether each of these measures vary by manual (auscultatory) vs. automated (oscillometric) BP readings.

METHODS

The authors declare that all supporting data are available within the article and its online supplementary files. Additional data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Study design, BP measurement and terminology

NHANES is a cross-sectional survey that operates continuously, and data are released in 2-year cycles. We used data from three cycles (2013–2014, 2015–2016, and 2017–March 2020, the pre-pandemic cycle). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, data for the NHANES 2019-2020 cycle was incomplete and not nationally representative and was combined with data from the NHANES 2017-2018 cycle to form a nationally representative sample.25 Study population included youth aged 8 to 17 years with three BP readings. NHANES was approved by the National Center for Health Statistics Research Ethics Review Board. Parental consent and participant assent were obtained.26

Demographic information (age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin) were collected during an interview.27 Standing height and weight were measured using standard methods and equipment. Body mass index (BMI) percentile was determined from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts.28 Weight status was determined by BMI percentile and categorized dichotomously as underweight/healthy weight (BMI <85th percentile) versus overweight/obesity (BMI ≥85th percentile).

The BP methodology changed during the study period. During the 2013–2014 and 2015–2016 cycles, BP was measured using auscultation, referred to as the manual protocol (MP) here.29,30 In 2017 NHANES added oscillometric measurement of BP using an automated protocol (AP). In the 2017–2018 cycle, BP was measured using both MP and AP in each participant and since 2019 only AP is being used.24,30,31 To avoid cohort overlap, in this analysis we used only automated readings from the 2017–2018 cycle which are available in the 2017– March 2020 cycle. We used unweighted data as our goal was to use the NHANES database as a source of standardized BP readings in a large group of children and not to make estimates representative of the U.S. population.

NHANES used a standardized BP measurement protocol, with seated rest for five minutes prior to BP measurement.24,29,30 Right arm was preferred for BP measurement, but left arm could be used if needed. With the MP, a physician obtained three readings thirty seconds apart using a stethoscope and wall-mounted mercury sphygmomanometer.29,30 DBP was recorded as the pressure at which the last muffled sound was heard, also referred to as the fifth Korotkoff sound.32 The AP, performed by a technician, utilized the Omron HEM-907XL device that automatically obtained three BP measurements one minute apart.24,30,31 To minimize data entry error, NHANES has hard edits programmed into the system for each protocol. For MP: 1) SBP cannot be above 300 mmHg; 2) SBP must be above DBP; and 3) if there is no SBP then there cannot be a DBP although there can be an SBP without a DBP because SBP cannot be zero, but DBP can be zero.33 Similar hard edits are programmed into the system for AP, however neither SBP nor DBP can be zero.24

As studying BPV was an objective of our study, we did not perform data clean-up procedures for those with excessive differences among BP readings. We explored subjects with a DBP of zero but omitted them from data analysis for BPV and BP classification.

Hypertension-range BP readings were defined using the recommendations in the 2017 pediatric hypertension guidelines.11 Similar to other studies that used NHANES data to study pediatric hypertension, we used the average of all three BP readings for each subject to classify BP as hypertension range.34,35 Specifically, for children aged 8 to 12 years, we determined the BP percentile using age, sex, and height and defined hypertension as SBP and/or DBP ≥95th percentile or SBP ≥130 and/or DBP ≥80 mmHg (whichever was lower). For age 13 to 17 years, hypertension was defined by BP ≥130/≥80 mmHg.

We assessed BPV among the three readings for each subject using measures that either ignored or considered the temporal order of BP readings, denoted as non-directional or directional respectively. Non-directional BPV measures included standard deviation (SD), variability coefficient (VC), and the difference between the highest and lowest BP reading for each subject (ΔBP). Directional BPV measures included average real variability (ARV), comparison, and trend among the three sequential BP readings. This also included comparison of the first BP reading (BP1) with the average of the next two BP readings (BP2+3, referred to as ’subsequent’ BP) as well as the average of all three BP readings (BP1+2+3, referred to as ‘total’ BP). The difference between the first BP reading and subsequent BP is labeled ΔBPsub, referred to as “white coat effect” (WCE) by some.36 The difference between the initial BP reading and total BP is referred to as ΔBPtotal. ARV is the average of the “absolute” differences between consecutive BP readings while accounting for the temporal order of BP measurements (see Box).37

Statistical analysis

Statistical summaries for demographics, BP readings, and BPV were calculated using medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical data. Means and SD were additionally included in the display tables for some continuous variable analyses to allow for easy comparison with other studies. Comparisons between manual and automated BP readings were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and comparisons between categorical data were performed using Chi-square test or Fisher exact test. All analyses were performed in SAS v.9.4 (Cary, NC), and statistical significance was assessed two-sided at the 0.05 threshold. No sample weights were incorporated in the analysis.

One of the authors (SR) had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for its integrity and the data analysis.

Results

Of the 6801 eligible subjects, 5874 (86.4%) had three BP readings (Figure 1). An additional 3.7% (218/5874) subjects were excluded due to one or more DBP readings of ‘zero’. We included a total of 5656 subjects in the primary analysis with 3365 (59.5%) in the MP and 2291 (40.5%) in the AP group.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Consort flow diagram demonstrating selection of eligible participants included in the primary analysis among NHANES participants contributing blood pressure data.

Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of subjects. The MP group had a higher percentage of Hispanic white subjects and a lower percentage of participants in the other racial or ethnic groups. Overweight/obesity was noted in 40.6% and was similar between the MP and AP groups. Hypertension-range BP was observed in 4.5% of subjects and was similar in the MP and AP groups.

View this table:
Table 1: Characteristics of study participants

Individual-level non-directional BPV analysis showed intra-individual ΔSBP median of 4.0 mmHg and was slightly lower in the MP than AP group (Table 2). The median intra-individual ΔDBP was 6 mmHg and was slightly higher in the MP group. BP SD and VC were low except for the median VC for DBP which was 6.2% for MP group compared to 4.1% for AP group. An intra-individual SBP difference of at least 5 mmHg was noted in 49.1% subjects overall (Table 2) and was less common in the MP than AP group (45.4% versus 54.8%). Intra-individual ΔDBP ≥5mmHg was seen in 60.7% and was more common in the MP than AP group (65.3% versus 54.0%). Notably, intra-individual ΔDBP ≥10 mmHg was twice as common in the MP than AP group (33.3% versus 14.9%). Intra-individual ΔSBP ≥20 mmHg (excessive BPV) was seen in only 0.3% of the MP group as compared to 2.8% of the AP group (Figure 2). In contrast, ΔDBP ≥20 mmHg was higher in the MP than AP group (5.3% versus 3.1%). The maximum ΔSBP was 26 mmHg and 64 mmHg in the MP and AP groups respectively (Tables S3-4), as the subject with ΔSBP 80 mmHg in the AP group seemed to be an outlier (Fig S1). We used ‘distance-based measure’ to define outlier.38 This subject (sequence number 120622, Table S4) had sequential SBP readings of 161, 81, and 84 mmHg. The initial SBP seems discordant but may also be from an exaggerated WCE. The highest ΔDBP was 46 mmHg and 53 mmHg for the MP and AP groups respectively (Tables S5-6) because eleven (three in the MP group, eight in the AP group) appeared to be outliers (Fig S2). A review of the subjects with outlier ΔDBP showed the discordant DBP to be the first, second, or third reading in equal proportion in six AP group subjects (Tables S5-6), while the remaining five subjects had no clear single discordant value. In subjects with non-outlier ΔBP ≥ 20 mmHg, the discordant value could be the first, second or third (Tables S3-6).

View this table:
Table 2: BP variability, non-directional (individual-level)
Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Distribution of ΔSBP and ΔDBP (individual-level)

Individual-level directional BPV measures included ARV (Table 3). The median SBP ARV was 3.0 mmHg, being similar in the MP and AP groups, while median DBP ARV was 4.0 mmHg and slightly higher in the MP than AP group. Notably, a DBP ARV ≥10 mmHg was twice as frequent in the MP group versus AP group (12.9% versus 5.8%). Individual-level directional BPV was also analyzed by the highest of three BP readings. While the first reading was the highest of all three BP readings most often (44.2% and 42.4% for SBP and DBP respectively), in over half the subjects the second or third readings were the highest in both the MP and AP groups (Table 3). At the individual level, a consistent pattern for decreasing BP (of at least 1 mmHg) was seen in 12.2% and 14.2% of subjects for SBP and DBP respectively and was more common in the AP than MP group for both SBP and DBP (Table 3). The opposite trend of consistent increase in individual-level BP readings was noted in 10.3% and 12.0% of subjects for SBP and DBP respectively and was more often seen in the AP group for SBP.

View this table:
Table 3: BP variability, directional (individual level)

Individual-level directional BPV was also assessed by comparing each subject’s first BP reading with subsequent BP and total BP respectively (Table S2). The median absolute difference between initial and subsequent SBP was 2.5 mmHg and was slightly lower in the MP than AP group. The median absolute difference between each subject’s initial and subsequent DBP was 3.0 mmHg and was higher in the MP than AP group. Similar relationship was noted between initial and total SBP and DBP, but the differences were smaller. Notably, a ΔSBPsub ≥ 5 mmHg was seen in 24.9% of subjects, being higher in 13.4% and lower in 11.5% (Figure 3) with no difference between the MP and AP groups (Table S2). A ΔDBPsub ≥5 mmHg was seen in 34.5% of subjects, with 18.2% of subjects having higher DBP1 than subsequent DBP (Figure 3), which was noted more often in the MP than AP group (Table S2). Similar but smaller and less frequent differences were seen between individual-level initial and total BP.

Figure 3:
Figure 3:

Difference between initial and subsequent and total BP (individual-level)

Group-level directional BPV analysis (Table S1) showed that the mean SBP decreased from the first to third reading in both the MP and AP groups as did mean DBP in the AP group. However, in the MP group, mean DBP decreased from the first to second but went up with the third reading. Additionally, group-level mean SBP1 and DBP1 were higher than subsequent and total BP except in the MP group where DBP1 was similar to total DBP. Group-wide subsequent BP was mostly lower than total BP or similar.

As higher DBPV (diastolic blood pressure variability) was a finding of our study, we assessed subjects with DBP ‘zero’ although they were excluded from the primary analysis. A DBP of ‘zero’ in one or more of the BP readings was noted exclusively in the MP group and occurred in 6.1% (218/3583). Most of these subjects (55.1%) had a single DBP ‘zero’, followed by subjects with two ‘zero’ DBP readings (26.1%) and all three ‘zero’ DBP readings in 18.8%.

DISCUSSION

Our study in a diverse community-based group of children and adolescents participating in NHANES shows significant within-visit BPV among three readings. About half the subjects had a difference of ≥5 mmHg among the three BP readings and some had excessive discrepancy with a difference of 20 mmHg or more. A quarter of subjects had a difference of ≥5 mmHg between the initial and subsequent BP. Contrary to a general assumption that BP decreases with repeat measurements, we found that BP may increase across subsequent measurements, and there is no consistent pattern in most subjects. In comparing the MP and AP groups, SBPV (systolic blood pressure variability) was slightly higher in the AP group while DBPV was greater in the MP group.

We noted ΔBP of < 5mmHg for SBP and DBP in 50.9% and 39.3% of all subjects, respectively. A study in Australian children with two automated BP readings also found 50% of subjects with ΔSBP -4 to 4 mmHg; ΔDBP was not reported.23 Studies in adults show similar variability in SBP but lower variability in DBP than our study. In adults with three manual BP readings, 57.4% and 68.3% of subjects had ΔSBP and ΔDBP 0–5 mmHg respectively as compared to 54.7% and 34.7% in our MP group.39 Two adult studies of within-visit BPV with three manual BP readings found ΔBP ≥6 mmHg for SBP in 42.6-64.5% but only in 31.7-32.3% subjects for DBP.39,40 In a similar trend of higher DBPV in children, we noted ΔBP ≥10 mmHg for SBP and DBP in 13.4% and 26% of our subjects respectively compared to 12.9% and 13% in adult NHANES data (n=53,737).41 A 1987 study of manual BP readings in children echoes our findings of higher DBPV than SBPV and also noted that BPV in children is considerably higher than BPV in adults.42

The finding of high DBPV in our study despite excluding subjects with DBP ‘zero’ maybe related to subjects with manual DBP as low as 2-14 mmHg although automated DBP readings were not as low (Tables S5,6). Our rate of DBP of ‘zero’ in the MP group was similar to the Bogalusa Heart Study (6.1% vs. 7.4%).32 The reason for higher DBPV in children than adults are not clear but may be related to ‘wellness’ factors such as age, lifestyle differences and lower hypertension prevalence. A pediatric study noted that younger age and lower BP were associated with higher DBPV.42 In an adult study, within-visit DBPV was positively associated with physical activity and inversely related with hypertension diagnosis.43 Interestingly, SBPV ≥ 10 mmHg was associated with diabetes status progression, but DBPV ≥ 10 mmHg was not. In children with untreated primary hypertension, SBPV was higher than DBPV and family history of hypertension was associated with lower DBPV.44 Higher DBPV than SBPV in our study may be related to most of our subjects being normotensive. Higher sympathetic transduction was associated with greater DBPV in young healthy adults, however available pediatric data suggest that sympathetic nervous system activity decreases from birth to adolescence.45,46 The role of arterial stiffness is unclear; a study in China noted a temporal relationship between long-term BPV and arterial stiffness47, however a study in France found no association between short-term BPV and arterial stiffness.48

In our study, excessive BPV (ΔBP ≥ 20 mmHg) rate was much lower for SBP than DBP in the MP group (0.3% vs. 5.3%) while AP group had similar rate (2.8% vs. 3.1%), likely from the protocolized calculation. Adult data for three manual BP readings show a reverse trend with higher frequency of ΔSBP ≥20 mmHg (1.3%-1.7%) but only 0.5% for ΔDBP ≥20 mmHg.39,40 The phenomenon of lower SBPV and higher DBPV in children than in adults was noted in a study with manual BP readings.42 We found maximum ΔBP of 26 mmHg, 64 mmHg, 46 mmHg, and 53 mmHg for manual SBP, automated SBP, manual DBP, and automated DBP respectively. Although these appear excessively high, other studies have described similar discrepancy in intra-individual BP readings with reports of ΔSBP 50 mmHg and ΔDBP 40 mmHg with a full urinary bladder49, ΔSBP 52 mmHg40, and ΔSBP 75 mmHg with ΔDBP 36 mmHg related to alerting reaction50. Currently, it is unclear what degree of BPV is excessive and should be discarded.

Accordingly, arbitrary thresholds appear to be in use. In the Australian Health Survey, a difference >10 mmHg between the first two BP readings triggered a repeat BP measurement, while in the Canadian Health Measures Survey, based on pre-test data, ΔSBP ≥30 mmHg or ΔDBP ≥20 mmHg prompted a repeat BP measurement.23,51 The NHANES data protocol is strict but does not specify BPV limits. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) protocols set high and low parameters (SBP >260 mmHg or <70 mmHg, and DBP >150 mmHg or <40 mmHg are discarded) but do not discard readings with excessive differences.37

In our study, first BP was not always the highest, in contrast to other studies that describe a consistent decrease with repeat BP measurements however these studies were smaller and mostly compared group rather than individual BP readings.8,51–53 We found that the highest of the three readings was the first, second, and third reading in 45%, 30%, and 25% of subjects; corresponding numbers in an adult study were 54%, 25%, and 21% respectively.54 We noted ΔSBPsub ≥5 mmHg in 24.9% of all subjects and among these, subsequent BP was higher in 13.4% and lower in 11.5% subjects. The trend for subsequent BP to be lower or higher was also noted in a study in Australian children where the proportion of subjects with a decrease, increase, or no change from first to second automated SBP was 58%, 32%, and 10%.23 We noted that individual-level BP from the first to third reading showed a consistent decrease, a consistent increase, and a fluctuating pattern in about 13%, 12%, and 75% of subjects respectively with a comparable trend in an adult study with three automated BP readings with corresponding rates of 29%, 7%, and 64% respectively.54 This trend in our study may be explained by regression to the mean (or regression dilution bias) described in another NHANES study whereby low initial BP values tended to rise and higher values to fall.55

The significance of BPV includes impact on health, hypertension diagnosis, and subsequent treatment. In adults, there are mixed data about the association of high within-visit BPV with cardiovascular health risks such as stroke and diabetes43,56,57, and the role of short-term BPV in hypertension misdiagnosis is being recognized.58,59 In children, there are emerging, mostly cross-sectional, data on the association of BPVW with health. While some studies in children shows associations between short-term BPV derived from ABPM with cardiac remodeling features such as LVMI60 and relative wall thickness61, another study found no correlation.62 In hospitalized children, BPV was associated with acute kidney injury.63 In children with chronic kidney disease, ABPM-derived BPV was associated with hypertension but not cognitive abnormalities.64,65

Perspectives

Our study in a large group of healthy children found that there is considerable variability within three BP readings, both with manual and automated BP methodology. Our results also challenge the widely held belief that BP decreases with repeat measurements. Only a small minority of subjects had a consistent decrease in BP with repeat measurements and a consistent increase in BP was seen in some subjects. In the vast majority, there was no consistent trend of increase or decrease among the three BP readings. Our findings suggest that single BP readings may not represent a child’s BP status but future studies that include target organ damage will clarify this further.

Study limitations

Our study of BPV had some limitations. First, our study represents a series of cross-sectional analyses. Second, the NHANES BP protocol is rigorous while methodological errors are common in routine clinical care and may affect applicability of our findings to the general population. Third, we grouped participants with BP in the hypertension range and normotensive range together for analysis and did not have information about hypertension diagnosis or use of anti-hypertension medications. Fourth, we compared BPV in manual BP readings with automated BP readings, but these were not obtained in the same subjects. Although we did not exclude subjects with hypertension, the proportion with BP in the hypertension range was relatively low (∼4%). Although real-life clinical practice may not allow the rigor adopted by NHANES, our study findings may persuade attention to appropriate BP measurement protocol as much as possible.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, there is significant within-visit BPV with three BP readings in healthy children. DBPV tends to be higher in the MP than AP groups while SBPV is slightly higher in AP than MP group. BP can vary by as much as 20 mmHg among three readings and the discordant reading may be the first, second, or third, which challenges the paradigm that the first reading is always the highest and should be discarded. BP may consistently decrease or increase with three BP readings however in the majority, there is no consistent trend. Over half the subjects have the second or third reading as their highest. Our findings may impact the diagnosis of hypertension especially in younger children in whom the difference between normal and hypertension threshold is about 4 mmHg for SBP and about 3 mmHg for DBP. Longitudinal studies are required to clarify the health implications of BPV and number of required readings in youth. Information about the number of BP readings obtained should be available in pediatric hypertension trials.

Novelty and Relevance

What Is New?

  • BP can vary by as much as 20 mmHg or more between the highest and lowest of three BP readings especially for diastolic BP.

  • A difference of at least 5 mmHg between initial BP and the average of second and third readings was noted in 25% and 35% of all subjects for SBP and DBP respectively, being higher and lower in similar proportion.

  • BP variability is seen with both manual and automated BP readings and is mostly similar however diastolic BP is more variable with manual than automated BP readings.

  • Pediatric SBPV (systolic blood pressure variability) seems to be similar to adults, but DBPV is higher.

What Is Relevant?

  • BP may increase or decrease with three measurements at a single encounter.

Clinical/Pathophysiological Implications?

  • A single BP reading may not be representative of BP status which has implications in the diagnosis and management of pediatric hypertension.

  • Current recommendations to obtain single BP reading may need to be re-evaluated.

Data Availability

Included

Acknowledgments, Sources of Funding, & Disclosures

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for help with data collection provided by Dr. Brian Lee, PhD, MPH (Statistician at Children’s Mercy Hospital, 2401 Gillham Rd Kansas City, MO 64108). Dr. Lee has seen and approved mention of his name in the article.

Sources of Funding

None

Disclosures

SKR: stock in Invitae, Abbott Lab, Nestle ADR, PPH.

SG: none.

AMS: Grants (NIH, paid to institution); Consulting fees (Conjupro Worldwide Clinical Trials, paid to me), Leadership role (AHA, ASPN, unpaid)

Supplemental Material

Figures S1, S2

Tables S1 to S6

Non-standard Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABPM
ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
AP
automated protocol
ARV
average real variability
BMI
body mass index
BP
blood pressure
BPV
blood pressure variability
DBP
diastolic blood pressure
DBPV
diastolic blood pressure variability
MP
manual protocol
NHANES
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
SD
standard deviation
SBP
systolic blood pressure
SBPV
systolic blood pressure variability
VC
variability coefficient

References

  1. 1.↵
    Global report on hypertension: the race against a silent killer. In: Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023.
  2. 2.↵
    Kelly RK, Thomson R, Smith KJ, Dwyer T, Venn A, Magnussen CG. Factors Affecting Tracking of Blood Pressure from Childhood to Adulthood: The Childhood Determinants of Adult Health Study. J Pediatr. 2015;167:1422–1428 e1422. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.07.055
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Padwal R, Campbell NRC, Schutte AE, Olsen MH, Delles C, Etyang A, Cruickshank JK, Stergiou G, Rakotz MK, Wozniak G, et al. Optimizing observer performance of clinic blood pressure measurement: a position statement from the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group. J Hypertens. 2019;37:1737–1745. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002112
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    Weir MR. In the clinic: hypertension. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161:ITC1-15; quiz ITC16. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-161-11-201412020-01006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. 5.↵
    Rosei EA, Chiarini G, Rizzoni D. How important is blood pressure variability? Eur Heart J Suppl. 2020;22:E1–E6. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/suaa061
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    Mancia G, Parati G, Pomidossi G, Grassi G, Casadei R, Zanchetti A. Alerting reaction and rise in blood pressure during measurement by physician and nurse. Hypertension. 1987;9:209–215. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.9.2.209
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.
    Velasco A, Ayers C, Das SR, de Lemos JA, Khera A, Victor RG, Kaplan NM, Vongpatanasin W. Target organ complications and prognostic significance of alerting reaction: analysis from the Dallas Heart Study. J Hypertens. 2016;34:226–234. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000774
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    Eliasdottir SB, Steinthorsdottir SD, Indridason OS, Palsson R, Edvardsson VO. Comparison of aneroid and oscillometric blood pressure measurements in children. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013;15:776–783. doi: 10.1111/jch.12196
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    Flynn JT. Assessment of blood pressure in children: it’s all in the details. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013;15:772–773. doi: 10.1111/jch.12192
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Asmar R, Ioannidis JP, Kollias A, Lacy P, McManus RJ, Myers MG, Parati G, Shennan A, et al. Recommendations and Practical Guidance for performing and reporting validation studies according to the Universal Standard for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO). J Hypertens. 2019;37:459–466. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002039
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    Flynn JT, Kaelber DC, Baker-Smith CM, Blowey D, Carroll AE, Daniels SR, de Ferranti SD, Dionne JM, Falkner B, Flinn SK, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for Screening and Management of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2017;140. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1904
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    Lurbe E, Agabiti-Rosei E, Cruickshank JK, Dominiczak A, Erdine S, Hirth A, Invitti C, Litwin M, Mancia G, Pall D, et al. 2016 European Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of high blood pressure in children and adolescents. J Hypertens. 2016;34:1887–1920. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001039
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.
    Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE, Jr., Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, DePalma SM, Gidding S, Jamerson KA, Jones DW, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2018;71:e13–e115. doi: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000065
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    Wirix AJ, Nauta J, Groothoff JW, Rabelink TJ, HiraSing RA, Chinapaw MJ, Kist-van Holthe JE. Is the prevalence of hypertension in overweight children overestimated? Arch Dis Child. 2016;101:998–1003. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309969
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Agarwal R. Implications of Blood Pressure Measurement Technique for Implementation of Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.004536
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.
    Handler J. The importance of accurate blood pressure measurement. Perm J. 2009;13:51–54. doi: 10.7812/tpp/09-054
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.
    Koebnick C, Black MH, Wu J, Martinez MP, Smith N, Kuizon BD, Jacobsen SJ, Reynolds K. The prevalence of primary pediatric prehypertension and hypertension in a real-world managed care system. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013;15:784–792. doi: 10.1111/jch.12173
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Moin A, Mohanty N, Tedla YG, Carroll AJ, Padilla R, Langman CB, Smith JD. Under-recognition of pediatric hypertension diagnosis: Examination of 1 year of visits to community health centers. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2021;23:257–264. doi: 10.1111/jch.14148
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE, Jr., Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, DePalma SM, Gidding S, Jamerson KA, Jones DW, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2199–2269. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.005
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Veloudi P, Blizzard CL, Srikanth VK, Breslin M, Schultz MG, Sharman JE. Age-dependent changes in blood pressure over consecutive office measurements: impact on hypertension diagnosis and implications for international guidelines. J Hypertens. 2017;35:753–760. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001227
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    Becton LJ, Egan BM, Hailpern SM, Shatat IF. Blood pressure reclassification in adolescents based on repeat clinic blood pressure measurements. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2013;15:717–722. doi: 10.1111/jch.12168
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Rhodehouse BC, Fan J, Chen W, McNeal MJ, Durham CG, Erwin JP, 3rd. Effect of repeat manual blood pressure measurement on blood pressure and stage of hypertension. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2019;32:498–501. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2019.1626657
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    Veloudi P, Blizzard CL, Srikanth VK, Schultz MG, Sharman JE. Influence of blood pressure level and age on within-visit blood pressure variability in children and adolescents. Eur J Pediatr. 2018;177:205–210. doi: 10.1007/s00431-017-3049-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Blood Pressure Procedures Manual. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2019-2020/manuals/2019-Blood-Pressure-Procedures-Manual-508.pdf. 2019. Accessed December 31.
  25. 25.↵
    Stierman B AJ, Carroll MD, Chen TC, Davy O, Fink S, et al. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017–March 2020 prepandemic data files—Development of files and prevalence estimates for selected health outcomes. In: National Health Statistics Reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2021:1–21.
  26. 26.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survery (NHANES) MEC Interviewers Procedures Manual. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2015-2016/manuals/2016_MEC_Interviewers_Procedures.pdf. 2016. Accessed January 29.
  27. 27.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Interviewer Procedures Manual. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2017-2018/manuals/2017_Interviewer_Procedures_Manual.pdf. 2017. Accessed January 29.
  28. 28.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Child & Teen BMI. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/childrens_bmi/about_childrens_bmi.html. 2021. Accessed December 19.
  29. 29.↵
    Zipf G, Chiappa M, Porter KS, Ostchega Y, Lewis BG, Dostal J. National health and nutrition examination survey: plan and operations, 1999-2010. Vital Health Stat 1. 2013:1–37.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survery (NHANES) Physician Examination Procedures Manual. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2017-2018/manuals/2018-Physician-Examination-Manual-508.pdf. 2018. Accessed January 29.
  31. 31.↵
    Ostchega Y, Nwankwo T, Chiappa M, Wolz M, Graber J, Nguyen DT. Comparing Blood Pressure Values Obtained by Two Different Protocols: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2017-2018. Vital Health Stat 1. 2021:1–26.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    Freedman DS, Foltz JL, Berenson GS. Differences between the fourth and fifth Korotkoff phases among children and adolescents. Am J Hypertens. 2014;27:1495–1502. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpu064
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Physician Examination. Procedures Manual. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/2015-2016/manuals/2015_Physician_Examination_Procedures_Manual.pdf. 2015. Accessed Nov 12.
  34. 34.↵
    Goulding M, Goldberg R, Lemon SC. Differences in Blood Pressure Levels Among Children by Sociodemographic Status. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E88. doi: 10.5888/pcd18.210058
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.↵
    Kit BK, Kuklina E, Carroll MD, Ostchega Y, Freedman DS, Ogden CL. Prevalence of and trends in dyslipidemia and blood pressure among US children and adolescents, 1999-2012. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:272–279. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3216
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O’Brien E, Dobson JE, Dahlof B, Poulter NR, Sever PS, Ascot B, Investigators MRCT. Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:469–480. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70066-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  37. 37.↵
    Mena L, Pintos S, Queipo NV, Aizpurua JA, Maestre G, Sulbaran T. A reliable index for the prognostic significance of blood pressure variability. J Hypertens. 2005;23:505–511. doi: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000160205.81652.5a
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    Janoudi G, Uzun Rada M, Fell DB, Ray JG, Foster AM, Giffen R, Clifford T, Walker MC. Outlier analysis for accelerating clinical discovery: An augmented intelligence framework and a systematic review. PLOS Digit Health. 2024;3:e0000515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000515
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Shin JH, Shin J, Kim BK, Lim YH, Park HC, Choi SI, Kim SG, Kim JH. Within-visit blood pressure variability: relevant factors in the general population. J Hum Hypertens. 2013;27:328–334. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2012.39
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Su H, Wang J, Zhu Y, Wang G, Cheng X. Discrepancy among three blood pressure readings within one measurement and relevant influencing factors. Blood Press Monit. 2010;15:152–157. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e328337cea6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Papaioannou TG, Protogerou AD, Stamatelopoulos KS, Alexandraki KI, Vrachatis D, Argyris A, Papaioannou V, Vavuranakis M, Stefanadis C, Tousoulis D. A cohort-based comprehensive characterization of different patterns of very short-term, within-visit, blood pressure variability. Blood Press Monit. 2020;25:131–135. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000435
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Rosner B, Cook NR, Evans DA, Keough ME, Taylor JO, Polk BF, Hennekens CH. Reproducibility and predictive values of routine blood pressure measurements in children. Comparison with adult values and implications for screening children for elevated blood pressure. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;126:1115–1125. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114750
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    Joshipura KJ, Munoz-Torres FJ, Campos M, Rivera-Diaz AD, Zevallos JC. Association between within-visit systolic blood pressure variability and development of pre-diabetes and diabetes among overweight/obese individuals. J Hum Hypertens. 2017;32:26–33. doi: 10.1038/s41371-017-0009-y
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    Krzych LJ. Blood pressure variability in children with essential hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21:494–500. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1002172
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    O’Brien MW, Nardone M, Foster M, Coovadia Y, Usselman CW, Taylor CE, Millar PJ, Kimmerly DS. Higher sympathetic transduction is independently associated with greater very short-term diastolic blood pressure variability in young healthy males and females. Clin Auton Res. 2023;33:529–532. doi: 10.1007/s10286-023-00949-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    Harteveld LM, Nederend I, Ten Harkel ADJ, Schutte NM, de Rooij SR, Vrijkotte TGM, Oldenhof H, Popma A, Jansen LMC, Suurland J, et al. Maturation of the Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Activity in Children and Adolescents. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e017405. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.017405
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.↵
    Wu Z, Zhang H, Wang Y, Li Z, Li X, Tao L, Guo X. Temporal and Bidirectional Association Between Blood Pressure Variability and Arterial Stiffness: Cross-Lagged Cohort Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2023;9:e45324. doi: 10.2196/45324
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    Cremer A, Doublet J, Boulestreau R, Gaudissard J, Tzourio C, Gosse P. Short-term blood pressure variability, arterial stiffness, and cardiovascular events: results from the Bordeaux cohort. J Hypertens. 2021;39:947–951. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002735
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.↵
    Szasz JJ, Whyte HM. Effect of distension of the bladder and of contraction of sphincters on blood pressure. Br Med J. 1967;2:208–210. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5546.208
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    Mancia G, Bertinieri G, Grassi G, Parati G, Pomidossi G, Ferrari A, Gregorini L, Zanchetti A. Effects of blood-pressure measurement by the doctor on patient’s blood pressure and heart rate. Lancet. 1983;2:695–698. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(83)92244-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    Bryan S, Saint-Pierre Larose M, Campbell N, Clarke J, Tremblay MS. Resting blood pressure and heart rate measurement in the Canadian Health Measures Survey, cycle 1. Health Rep. 2010;21:71–78.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. 52.
    Negroni-Balasquide X, Bell CS, Samuel J, Samuels JA. Is one measurement enough to evaluate blood pressure among adolescents? A blood pressure screening experience in more than 9000 children with a subset comparison of auscultatory to mercury measurements. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2016;10:95–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2015.12.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    Lacruz ME, Kluttig A, Kuss O, Tiller D, Medenwald D, Nuding S, Greiser KH, Frantz S, Haerting J. Short-term blood pressure variability - variation between arm side, body position and successive measurements: a population-based cohort study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17:31. doi: 10.1186/s12872-017-0468-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    Lin HJ, Pan HY, Chen WJ, Wang TD. Variation in Blood Pressure Classification Using 7 Blood Pressure Estimation Protocols Among Adults in Taiwan. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2024311. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.24311
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.↵
    Handler J, Zhao Y, Egan BM. Impact of the number of blood pressure measurements on blood pressure classification in US adults: NHANES 1999-2008. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:751–759. doi: 10.1111/jch.12009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Hanchaiphiboolkul S, Puthkhao P, Tantirittisak T, Na Songkhla K, Komonchan S, Worakijthamrongchai T, Thiraworawong T. Within-Visit Blood Pressure Variability and All-Cause and Stroke Mortality: Thai Epidemiologic Stroke Study. Neuroepidemiology. 2022;56:345–354. doi: 10.1159/000525333
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. 57.↵
    Ma W, Yang Y, Qi L, Zhang B, Meng L, Zhang Y, Li M, Huo Y. Relation between Blood Pressure Variability within a Single Visit and Stroke. Int J Hypertens. 2021;2021:2920140. doi: 10.1155/2021/2920140
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. 58.↵
    Meng Y, Magnussen CG, Wu F, Juonala M, Buscot MJ, Pahkala K, Hutri-Kahonen N, Kahonen M, Laitinen T, Viikari JSA, et al. Impact of within-visit systolic blood pressure change patterns on blood pressure classification: the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2022;29:2090–2098. doi: 10.1093/eurjpc/zwac108
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.↵
    Cahan A, Ben-Dov IZ, Mekler J, Bursztyn M. The role of blood pressure variability in misdiagnosed clinic hypertension. Hypertens Res. 2011;34:187–192. doi: 10.1038/hr.2010.190
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    Sharma AP, Mohammed J, Thomas B, Lansdell N, Norozi K, Filler G. Nighttime blood pressure, systolic blood pressure variability, and left ventricular mass index in children with hypertension. Pediatr Nephrol. 2013;28:1275–1282. doi: 10.1007/s00467-013-2468-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    Goudswaard LJ, Harrison S, Van De Klee D, Chaturvedi N, Lawlor DA, Davey Smith G, Hughes AD, Howe LD. Blood pressure variability and night-time dipping assessed by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring: Cross-sectional association with cardiac structure in adolescents. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0253196. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253196
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  62. 62.↵
    Leisman D, Meyers M, Schnall J, Chorny N, Frank R, Infante L, Sethna CB. Blood pressure variability in children with primary vs secondary hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2014;16:437–441. doi: 10.1111/jch.12322
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. 63.↵
    Nugent JT, Ghazi L, Yamamoto Y, Bakhoum C, Wilson FP, Greenberg JH. Hypertension, Blood Pressure Variability, and Acute Kidney Injury in Hospitalized Children. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12:e029059. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.029059
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. 64.↵
    Barletta GM, Flynn J, Mitsnefes M, Samuels J, Friedman LA, Ng D, Cox C, Poffenbarger T, Warady B, Furth S. Heart rate and blood pressure variability in children with chronic kidney disease: a report from the CKiD study. Pediatr Nephrol. 2014;29:1059–1065. doi: 10.1007/s00467-013-2737-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.↵
    Lande MB, Mendley SR, Matheson MB, Shinnar S, Gerson AC, Samuels JA, Warady BA, Furth SL, Hooper SR. Association of blood pressure variability and neurocognition in children with chronic kidney disease. Pediatr Nephrol. 2016;31:2137–2144. doi: 10.1007/s00467-016-3425-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted August 20, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Within-visit Blood Pressure Variability in Children and Adolescents in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013-2020)
Sandeep K Riar, Scott Gillespie, Andrew M South
medRxiv 2024.08.14.24312023; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.14.24312023
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area