CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

Blood pressure variability assessed by office, home, and ambulatory measurements: comparison, agreement, and determinants

Open access
Boubouchairopoulou, Nadia, Ntineri, Angeliki, Kollias, Anastasios, Destounis, Antonios, Stergiou, George S.·2021·Hypertension Research
DOI 10.1038/s41440-021-00736-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The present study compared the blood pressure variability (BPV) among office (OBP), home (HBP), and ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) measurements and assessed their determinants, as well as their agreement in identifying individuals with high BPV. Individuals attending a hypertension clinic had OBP measurements (2-3 visits) and underwent HBP monitoring (3-7 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements) and ABP monitoring (24 h, 20-min intervals). BPV was quantified using the standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variability independent of the mean (VIM) using all BP readings obtained by each method. A total of 626 participants were analyzed (age 52.8 ± 12.0 years, 57.7% males, 33.1% treated). Systolic BPV was usually higher than diastolic BPV, and out-of-office BPV was higher than office BPV, with ambulatory BPV giving the highest values. BPV was higher in women than men, yet it was not different between untreated and treated individuals. Associations among BPV indices assessed using different measurement methods were weak (r 0.1-0.3) but were stronger between out-of-office BPV indices. The agreement between methods in detecting individuals with high BPV was low (30-40%) but was higher between out-of-office BPV indices. Older age was an independent determinant of increased OBP variability. Older age, female sex, smoking, and overweight/obesity were determinants of increased out-of-office BPV. These data suggest that BPV differs with different BP measurement methods, reflecting different pathophysiological phenomena, whereas the selection of the BPV index is less important. Office and out-of-office BP measurements appear to be complementary methods in assessing BPV.

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 · 10.1038/s41440-021-00736-9

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?

  • The association between indices of different types of BP variability, and their agreement in detecting individuals with high BP variability, is moderate.

    “Of note, although all types of BPV have a certain degree of clinical relevance and prognostic value, the association between the indices of different types of BPV, as well as their agreement in detecting individuals with high BPV, is moderate87,88.”

    From Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques (2022) · cites this paper as [88]

    The Results report overall weak correlations between BPV indices measured by different methods and limited agreement (29–43%) in identifying people with high BPV. The Discussion likewise calls the correlations weak and the agreement limited, rather than moderate. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005;365:217-23.
  2. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3021-104.
  3. Stergiou GS, Parati G. How to best assess blood pressure? The ongoing debate on the clinical value of blood pressure average and variability. Hypertension. 2011;57:1041-2.
  4. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Salvi P, Lombardi C, Bilo G. Prognostic value of blood pressure variability and average blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:S312-324.
  5. Nardin C, Rattazzi M, Pauletto P. Blood pressure variability and therapeutic implications in hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2019;26:353-9.
  6. Del Giorno R, Balestra L, Heiniger PS, Gabutti L. Blood pressure variability with different measurement methods: relia- bility and predictors. A proof of concept cross sectional study in elderly hypertensive hospitalized patients. Medicine. 2019;98: e16347.
  7. Stevens SL, Wood S, Koshiaris C, Law K, Glasziou P, Stevens RJ, et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;354:i4098.
  8. Juhanoja EP, Niiranen TJ, Johansson JK, Puukka PJ, Jula AM. Agreement between ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure variability. J Hypertens. 2016;34:61-67.
  9. Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Asmar R, Bilo G, de la Sierra A, Head G, et al. Blood pressure monitoring: theory and practice. European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability Teaching Course Proceedings. Blood Press Monit. 2018;23:1-8.
  10. Stergiou GS, Kollias A, Ntineri A. Assessment of drug effects on blood pressure variability: which method and which index? J Hypertens. 2014;32:1197-1200.
  11. Abellan-Huerta J, Prieto-Valiente L, Montoro-Garcia S, Abellan- Aleman J, Soria-Arcos F. Correlation of blood pressure variability as measured by clinic, self-measurement at home, and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens. 2018;31:305-12.
  12. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O'Brien E, Dobson JE, Dahlof B, et al. Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:469-80.
  13. Bilo G, Giglio A, Styczkiewicz K, Caldara G, Maronati A, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, et al. A new method for assessing 24-h blood pressure variability after excluding the contribution of nocturnal blood pressure fall. J Hypertens. 2007;25:2058-66.
  14. Mancia G, Grassi G. Mechanisms and clinical implications of blood pressure variability. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2000;35:S15-19.
  15. Grassi G, Bombelli M, Seravalle G, Dell'Oro R, Quarti-Trevano F. Diurnal blood pressure variation and sympathetic activity. Hypertens Res. 2010;33:381-5.
  16. Stergiou GS, Nasothimiou EG. Home monitoring is the optimal method for assessing blood pressure variability. Hypertens Res. 2011;34:1246-8.
  17. Sogunuru GP, Kario K, Shin J, Chen CH, Buranakitjaroen P, Chia YC, et al. Morning surge in blood pressure and blood pressure variability in Asia: evidence and statement from the HOPE Asia Network. J Clin Hypertens. 2019;21:324-34.
  18. Ghazi L, Pajewski NM, Rifkin DE, Bates JT, Chang TI, Cushman WC, et al. Effect of intensive and standard clinic-based hypertension management on the concordance between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and blood pressure variability in SPRINT. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e011706.
  19. Imai Y, Ohkubo T, Tsuji I, Hozawa A, Nagai K, Kikuya M, et al. Relationships among blood pressures obtained using different measurement methods in the general population of Ohasama, Japan. Hypertens Res. 1999;22:261-72.
  20. Wei FF, Li Y, Zhang L, Xu TY, Ding FH, Wang JG, et al. Beat-to-beat, reading-to-reading, and day-to-day blood pressure variability in relation to organ damage in untreated Chinese. Hypertension. 2014;63:790-6.
  21. Muntner P, Shimbo D, Diaz KM, Newman J, Sloan RP, Schwartz JE. Low correlation between visit-to-visit variability and 24-h variability of blood pressure. Hypertens Res. 2013;36:940-6.
  22. Parati G, Omboni S, Bilo G. Why is out-of-office blood pressure measurement needed? Hypertension. 2009;54:181-7.
  23. Ogedegbe G, Schoenthaler A. A systematic review of the effects of home blood pressure monitoring on medication adherence. J Clin Hypertens. 2006;8:174-80.
  24. Ash GI, Walker TJ, Olson KM, Stratton JH, Gomez AL, Kraemer WJ, et al. Reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure changes from the initial values on two different days. Clinics. 2013;68:1509-15.
  25. Imai Y, Aihara A, Ohkubo T, Nagai K, Tsuji I, Minami N, et al. Factors that affect blood pressure variability. A community-based study in Ohasama, Japan. Am J Hypertens. 1997;10:1281-9.
  26. Abramson JL, Lewis C, Murrah NV. Body mass index, leptin, and ambulatory blood pressure variability in healthy adults. Atherosclerosis. 2011;214:456-61.
  27. Stergiou GS, Ntineri A, Kollias A, Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Parati G. Blood pressure variability assessed by home measurements: a systematic review. Hypertens Res. 2014;37:565-72.
  28. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Lombardi C, Bilo G. Blood pressure variability: assessment, predictive value, and potential as a therapeutic target. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2015;17:537.
  29. Roush GC, Fagard RH, Salles GF, Pierdomenico SD, Reboldi G, Verdecchia P, et al. Prognostic impact of sex-ambulatory blood pressure interactions in 10 cohorts of 17 312 patients diagnosed with hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2015;33:212-20.
  30. Kato T, Kikuya M, Ohkubo T, Satoh M, Hara A, Obara T, et al. Factors associated with day-by-day variability of self-measured blood pressure at home: the Ohasama study. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:980-6.
  31. Sun Z. Aging, arterial stiffness, and hypertension. Hypertension 2015;65:252-6.
  32. Morano A, Ravera A, Agosta L, Sappa M, Falcone Y, Fonte G, et al. Extent of, and variables associated with, blood pressure variability among older subjects. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018;30:1327-33.
  33. Parati G, Stergiou GS, Dolan E, Bilo G. Blood pressure variability: clinical relevance and application. J Hypertens. 2018;20:1133-7.
  34. Kollias A, Stergiou GS, Kyriakoulis KG, Bilo G, Parati G. Treating visit-to-visit blood pressure variability to improve prognosis: is amlodipine the drug of choice? Hypertension. 2017;70:862-6.
  35. O'Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European Society of Hypertension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1731-68.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boubouchairopoulou, N., Ntineri, A., Kollias, A., Destounis, A., & Stergiou, G. S.
Affiliations
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
Corresponding author
Stergiou, George S.
ORCID
Venue
Hypertension Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-10-01
Volume
44
Issue
12
Pages
1617-1624
ISSN
  • 0916-9636 (ISSN-L)
  • 1348-4214
DOI
10.1038/s41440-021-00736-9
OpenAlex
W3203770661
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Hypertension Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
blood pressure variability, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, home blood pressure monitoring, office blood pressure measurement, measurement agreement, hypertension, systolic blood pressure variability, diastolic blood pressure variability, coefficient of variation, smoking, overweight and obesity, aging
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Office Visits, 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