CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 108Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Reliability of Office, Home, and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements and Correlation With Left Ventricular Mass

Open access
Schwartz, Joseph E., Muntner, Paul, Kronish, Ian M., Burg, Matthew M., Pickering, Thomas G., Bigger, John Thomas, Shimbo, Daichi·2020·Journal of the American College of Cardiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.039PMC PMC7749264
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background Determining the reliability and predictive validity of office blood pressure (OBP), ambulatory BP (ABP), and home BP (HBP) can inform which is best for diagnosing hypertension and estimating risk of cardiovascular disease. Objectives This study aimed to assess the reliability of OBP, HBP, and ABP and evaluate their associations with left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in untreated persons. Methods The Improving the Detection of Hypertension (IDH) study, a community-based observational study, enrolled 408 participants who had OBP assessed at 3 visits, and completed 3 weeks of HBP, 2 24-h ABP recordings, and a 2-dimensional echocardiogram. Mean age was 41.2 ± 13.1 years, 59.5% were women, 25.5% African American, and 64.0% Hispanic. Results The reliability of 1 week of HBP, 3 office visits with mercury sphygmomanometry, and 24-h ABP were 0.938, 0.894, and 0.846 for systolic and 0.918, 0.847, and 0.843 for diastolic BP, respectively. The correlations among OBP, HBP, and ABP, corrected for regression dilution bias, were 0.74 to 0.89. After multivariable adjustment including OBP and 24-h ABP, 10 mm Hg higher systolic and diastolic HBP were associated with 5.07 (standard error [SE]: 1.48) and 3.92 (SE: 2.14) g/m 2 higher LVMI, respectively. After adjustment for HBP, neither systolic or diastolic OBP nor ABP was associated with LVMI. Conclusions OBP, HBP, and ABP assess somewhat distinct parameters. Compared with OBP (3 visits) or 24-h ABP, systolic and diastolic HBP (1 week) were more reliable and more strongly associated with LVMI. These data suggest that 1 week of HBP monitoring may be the best approach for diagnosing hypertension.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.039

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 35 · Cited by 108

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. [1]Muntner P, Shimbo D, Carey RM Measurement of Blood Pressure in Humans: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Hypertension 2019; 73: e35– e66. 30827125 PMC11409525
  2. [2]Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71: e127– e248. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.006. Epub 2017 Nov 13. 29146535 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [6]Piper MA, Evans CV, Burda BU, Margolis KL, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP. Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of blood pressure screening methods with consideration of rescreening intervals: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 192– 204. 25531400
  4. [7]Shimbo D, Abdalla M, Falzon L, Townsend RR, Muntner P. Studies comparing ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure on cardiovascular disease and mortality outcomes: a systematic review. Journal of the American Society of Hypertension: JASH 2016; 10: 224– 234 e17. 26822864 PMC4788568
  5. [8]Pickering TG, Gerin W, Schwartz JE, Spruill TM, Davidson KW. Franz Volhard lecture: should doctors still measure blood pressure? The missing patients with masked hypertension. Journal of hypertension 2008; 26: 2259– 67. 19008701 PMC4580272
  6. [9]Pearce KA, Grimm RH Jr., Rao S Population-derived comparisons of ambulatory and office blood pressures. Implications for the determination of usual blood pressure and the concept of white coat hypertension. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 750– 6. 1558432
  7. [11]Frost C, Thompson SG. Correcting for regression dilution bias: comparison of methods for a single predictor variable. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 2000; 163: 173– 189.
  8. [12]Berglund L Regression dilution bias: tools for correction methods and sample size calculation. Ups J Med Sci 2012; 117: 279– 83. 22401135 PMC3410287
  9. [13]Siu AL, Force USPST. Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163: 778– 86. 26458123
  10. [14]Schwartz JE, Warren K, Pickering TG. Mood, location and physical position as predictors of ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate: application of a mulit-level random effects model. Ann Behav Med 1994; 16: 210– 220.
  11. [15]Imai Y, Obara T, Asamaya K, Ohkubo T. The reason why home blood pressure measurements are preferred over clinic or ambulatory blood pressure in Japan. Hypertens Res 2013; 36: 661– 72. 23595050
  12. [16]Mattu GS, Heran BS, Wright JM. Overall accuracy of the BpTRU--an automated electronic blood pressure device. Blood Press Monit 2004; 9: 47– 52. 15021078
  13. [17]Wright JM, Mattu GS, Perry TL Jr Validation of a new algorithm for the BPM-100 electronic oscillometric office blood pressure monitor. Blood Press Monit 2001; 6: 161– 5. 11518840
  14. [18]Coleman A, Steel S, Freeman P, de Greeff A, Shennan A. Validation of the Omron M7 (HEM-780-E) oscillometric blood pressure monitoring device according to the British Hypertension Society protocol. Blood Press Monit 2008; 13: 49– 54. 18199924
  15. [19]Topouchian J, Agnoletti D, Blacher J Validation of four devices: Omron M6 Comfort, Omron HEM-7420, Withings BP-800, and Polygreen KP-7670 for home blood pressure measurement according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol. Vascular health and risk management 2014; 10: 33– 44. 24476688 PMC3897354
  16. [20]O’Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O’Malley K. Accuracy of the SpaceLabs 90207 determined by the British Hypertension Society protocol. Journal of hypertension 1991; 9: 573– 4. 1653299
  17. [22]Sadeh A, Acebo C. The role of actigraphy in sleep medicine. Sleep Med Rev 2002; 6: 113– 24. 12531147
  18. [24]Shimbo D, Artinian NT, Basile JN Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring at Home: A Joint Policy Statement From the American Heart Association and American Medical Association. Circulation 2020: CIR0000000000000803. 32567342
  19. [25]Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015; 16: 233– 70. 25712077
  20. [26]Du Bois D, Du Bois EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. 1916. Nutrition 1989; 5: 303– 11; discussion 312–3. 2520314
  21. [27]Bartko JJ. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 1966; 19: 3– 11. 5942109
  22. [28]Muthén LKaM BO Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, 2017.
  23. [29]Schwartz JE, Burg MM, Shimbo D Clinic Blood Pressure Underestimates Ambulatory Blood Pressure in an Untreated Employer-Based US Population: Results From the Masked Hypertension Study. Circulation 2016; 134: 1794– 1807. 27920072 PMC5151173
  24. [30]Krause T, Lovibond K, Caulfield M, McCormack T, Williams B, Guideline Development G. Management of hypertension: summary of NICE guidance. Bmj 2011; 343: d4891. 21868454
  25. [32]Shimbo D, Kent ST, Diaz KM The use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring among Medicare beneficiaries in 2007–2010. Journal of the American Society of Hypertension: JASH 2014; 8: 891– 7. 25492832 PMC4262763
  26. [33]Brueren MM, van Limpt P, Schouten HJ, de Leeuw PW, van Ree JW. Is a series of blood pressure measurements by the general practitioner or the patient a reliable alternative to ambulatory blood pressure measurement? A study in general practice with reference to short-term and long-term between-visit variability. American journal of hypertension 1997; 10: 879– 85. 9270082
  27. [35]American Medical Association. CPT© 2020 Professional Edition Codebook. Chicago, IL.
  28. [36]Ostchega Y, Zhang GY, Kit BK, Nwankwo T. Factors Associated With Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Among US Adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2011–2014. Am J Hypertens 2017; 30: 1126– 1132. 28633432 PMC9880871
  29. [37]Kronish IM, Kent S, Moise N Barriers to conducting ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring during hypertension screening in the United States. Journal of the American Society of Hypertension: JASH 2017; 11: 573– 580. 28734798 PMC5595651
  30. [38]Grant S, Hodgkinson JA, Milner SL Patients’ and clinicians’ views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure: a qualitative focus group and interview study. Br J Gen Pract 2016; 66: e819– e830. 27381484 PMC5072920
  31. [39]Carter EJ, Moise N, Alcantara C, Sullivan AM, Kronish IM. Patient Barriers and Facilitators to Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: A Qualitative Study. Am J Hypertens 2018; 31: 919– 27. 29788130 PMC7190918

Authors
Schwartz, J. E., Muntner, P., Kronish, I. M., Burg, M. M., Pickering, T. G., Bigger, J. T., & Shimbo, D.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Schwartz, Joseph E.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
76
Issue
25
Pages
2911-2922
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.039
PMC
PMC7749264
OpenAlex
W3111512437
Cited by
108
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 1
FWCI
8.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
home blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory blood pressure, office blood pressure, left ventricular mass, hypertension diagnosis, regression dilution bias, cardiovascular risk, untreated hypertensive patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Pressure Determination, Echocardiography, Ethnicity, Female, Heart Ventricles, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Office Visits, Organ Size, Predictive Value of Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review