Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Blood Pressure Monitors”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1995

[New aspects in evaluating the hypertensive patient: measuring blood pressure in the physician's office--ambulatory blood pressure monitoring--blood pressure self-measurement].

The "average" blood pressure of hypertensives, which is held responsible for the adverse effects of hypertension is poorly reflected by causal readings (CR), which are taken as a surrogate. CR do not only differ from average blood pressures, but also fail to give information on blood pressure variability. According to white coat effect and blood pressure variability a satisfying classification of severity and consecutively of prognosis cannot be done in an individual. Furthermore CR fail to inform us sufficiently about therapeutic effects in single patients. To improve we have to change to blood pressure judgements which are based on many instead of occasional readings. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABM) is a possibility to overcome this weakness. Compared to casual readings the average of the ambulatory readings is higher reproducible and does not depend on placebo treatment. In spite of this advantage a general substitution of CR by ABM is impossible because the number of equipment available is too small, nobody wants to cover the costs, the procedure is inconvenient, and up till now we miss guidelines how to proceed in the daily routine. Blood pressure self-monitoring is an additional way to improve the weakness of CR. The amount of blood pressure readings needed for a satisfying judgement of blood pressure are taken and registered by the patients. The self recorded data can be used as a valuable data base to calculate average blood pressure and blood pressure variability and drug effects. Mean values of twice daily recordings of a month are highly reproducible and do highly correlate to average ABM recordings of the day.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed2001

Assessment of blood pressure in patients with Type 2 diabetes: comparison between home blood pressure monitoring, clinic blood pressure measurement and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

AIMS: To compare a home blood pressure (BP) monitoring device and clinic BP measurement with 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Fifty-five patients with type 2 DM had BP measured at three consecutive visits to the DM clinic by nurses using a stethoscope and mercury sphygmomanometer (CBP). Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP was measured using a Spacelabs 90207 automatic cuff-oscillometric device (ABPM). Subjects were then instructed in how to use a Boots HEM 732B semiautomatic cuff-oscillometric home BP monitoring device and measured BP at home on three specified occasions on each of 4 consecutive days at varying times (HBPM). RESULTS: Correlations between HBPM and ABPM were r = 0.88, P < 0.001 for systolic BP and r = 0.76, P < 0.001 for diastolic BP, with correlations between CBP and ABPM being systolic r = 0.59, P < 0.001, diastolic r = 0.47, P < 0.001. HBPM agreed with ABPM more closely compared with CBP (CBP +10.9/+3.8 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 6.9, 14.8/1.6, 6.1) vs. HBPM +8.2/+3.7 (95% CI 6.0, 10.3/2.0, 5.4)). The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of HBPM in detecting hypertension were 100%, 79% and 90%, respectively, compared with CBP (85%, 46% and 58%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with Type 2 DM, home BP monitoring is superior to clinic BP measurement, when compared with 24-h ambulatory BP, and allows better detection of hypertension. It would be a rational addition to the annual review process. Diabet. Med. 18, 431-437 (2001)

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin II AT1-receptor antagonist losartan: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial using 24-hour blood pressure monitoring. Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Study Group.

The antihypertensive efficacy of once- and twice-daily losartan was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial using ambulatory 24-h blood pressure monitoring in 122 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Data are reported for 112 patients who completed the active treatment phase. Losartan exerted a sustained 24-h antihypertensive effect at all doses studied (50 or 100 mg once daily, or 50 mg twice daily). Losartan demonstrated a smooth, gradual onset of action, did not affect normal circadian variations on blood pressure, and had no significant effect on heart rate. An additive antihypertensive effect was obtained by adding low-dose hydrochlorothiazide to losartan monotherapy at all doses of losartan studied. Losartan was well tolerated during the study with a frequency of adverse events comparable with placebo. No major adverse events were recorded. The results of this study indicate that losartan is an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive agent that provides 24-h blood pressure-lowering efficacy from a single daily dose of 50 mg.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1990

National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group report on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Blood pressure measurements obtained in a physician's office may not represent a patient's blood pressure during an entire day. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) provides multiple readings over time. This review of the literature on ABPM addresses the current state of ABPM methods, normal blood pressure profiles, the clinical and research uses of ABPM, cost considerations, and recommendations for use of ABPM in selected circumstances. Current ABPM devices use either auscultatory or oscillometric methods to determine blood pressure. A rigorous comparison of these methods is needed to determine whether one method is more reliable. A nonbiased assessment of all available equipment is necessary. Normative data provided by ABPM research are needed for populations by age, race, gender, body habitus, and conditions, such as pregnancy. While ABPM is not cost-effective for all hypertensive patients, it can assist in the evaluation of such problems as target organ complications, syncopal episodes, episodic hypertension, and autonomic dysfunction.

Blood Pressure↗
PubMed1989

Clinical use of home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Blood pressure measurements made in the physician's office with a mercury-column sphygmomanometer traditionally have been the standard for diagnosis of hypertension and determination of the efficacy of antihypertensive agents. The utility of this measurement is limited, however, by the characteristic variability of blood pressure; office blood pressure readings are not always reliable indicators of pressures occurring throughout the course of the day. Therefore, blood pressure measurements performed by patients or family members at home and automatic ambulatory blood pressure monitoring are two supplementary methods used in the clinical management of hypertension. In this article, the role of these methods in the diagnosis of hypertension and other cardiovascular disorders as well as in the evaluation of the efficacy of antihypertensive therapy is addressed.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed1993

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and blood pressure self-measurement in the diagnosis and management of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To review published evidence on the use of ambulatory and self-measurement devices in the diagnosis and management of hypertension. DATA SOURCES: Computerized literature searches and manual review of bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Articles documenting original research pertaining to the diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis of hypertension using ambulatory or self-measurement devices. RESULTS: Studies that have compared office, self-measured, and ambulatory blood pressures have documented substantial, but nonsystematic, differences. Such findings have raised concern over the appropriateness of diagnosing hypertension and initiating drug therapy in individuals with high office blood pressure but comparatively low self-measured or ambulatory blood pressure ("office" or "white coat" hypertension). Evidence from a large number of cross-sectional studies and a single prospective study suggests that blood pressure- related end-organ damage is more closely associated with ambulatory than with office blood pressure. Less evidence supports self-measured blood pressure in this regard, and data are insufficient to compare ambulatory and self-measured blood pressure in terms of cardiovascular disease risk prediction. The estimated resource cost of an ambulatory blood pressure test is approximately $120, whereas charges range from $100 to $450. The annualized resource cost of blood pressure self-measurement is $50 or less. On a national level, the annual direct costs of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring could be as high as $6 billion, if this technique were used routinely to diagnose and monitor hypertensive patients. The extent to which direct costs would be offset by savings from less frequent or more efficient treatment for hypertension cannot be estimated reliably. Several practical and technical issues also detract from the potential usefulness of ambulatory and self-measurement devices. Finally, there is some evidence that office blood pressures measured by well-trained nonphysicians may serve as an alternative to ambulatory and self-measurement techniques in estimating usual blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Limited clinical applications of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and blood pressure self-measurement in the diagnosis and management of hypertension appear to be warranted. Endorsement of these technologies for routine clinical use, however, will require more convincing evidence of their clinical effectiveness.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2001

[Self monitoring versus ambulatory blood pressure monitoring].

Blood pressure is a variable parameter for which the isolated determination cannot be considered as a characteristic of the subject. Therefore, the clinical measurement of blood pressure constitutes the method of reference but presents limits and causes of errors which pose a problem for its validity in evaluating the average blood pressure level in certain patients. In order to overcome the limits of occasional measurement, different methods of blood pressure measurement have been proposed. Among these methods, self monitoring of blood pressure by the patient and 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) are the most used. Each of these methods presents advantages and disadvantages, indications and limits of use. The information obtained by each of them is of a different nature: these methods are not substitutes but are complementary. Self monitoring and ABPM seem to evaluate the pressure load better than clinical monitoring and are better correlated to the organic effects of hypertension and thus the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, ABPM in particular. However, it remains to be clarified whether the use of these methods in the evaluation of cardiovascular risk and the therapeutic management of the hypertensive can improve the long term cardiovascular prognosis.

Blood Pressure↗
PubMed1990

[Blood pressures at work, home and during sleep in patients with essential hypertension: analysis by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring].

Blood pressure (BP) recordings were obtained every 30 min using a noninvasive ambulatory BP recorder during 24 hours in 93 subjects with hypertension. Recordings were analyzed in four different situations: (1) annual check up at the health service center, (2) at work, (3) at home, and (4) during sleep. Subjects with BP higher than 160/95 mmHg in any of the three situations were defined as established hypertensive (n = 36); Subjects with 140-159/90-94 mmHg, as the borderline hypertensive (n = 32); and subjects with BP lower than 139/89 mmHg, as the normotensive (n = 25). Four successive systolic and diastolic BP values were averaged and served as 24-hour BP patterns. Systolic BP over 140 mmHg, diastolic BP over 90 mmHg and mean BP over 107 mmHg were defined as a s-hyperbaric index (s-HBI), d-HBI and m-HBI, respectively. The normotensive group showed a marked decrease of BP after recordings explained by the "white coat phenomenon". The 24-hour recordings in all the three groups showed the highest BP at work and the lowest during sleep. The situational BP changes were generally similar, but the established hypertensive group showed larger BP differences between work and home (SBP 8.8 +/- 9.0 mmHg, 7.8 +/- 8.3 mmHg). For differentiating the three groups, the hyperbaric index was better than the 24-hour average BP. The average home BP showed a good correlation with the 24-hour average BP [SBP: r = 0.94 (p less than 0.01), DBP: r = 0.85 (p less than 0.01)]. Especially, BPs recorded before sleep predicted well the 24-hour average BP. An average of multiple BP measurements before sleep is thought to represent a 24-hour average BP more closely than a conventionally used single recording at home or after awakening.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Home blood pressure monitoring.

Blood pressure measurements made in the physician's office have been the standard for diagnosing hypertension and determining the efficacy of antihypertensive drug therapy. However, these measurements do not necessarily reflect a patient's usual blood pressures in other circumstances, such as at work or in the home. Accurate blood pressure measurements performed by the patient or a family member in an out-of-office setting can be integrated with office readings to assist in the management of hypertension.

Blood Pressure Determination↗
PubMed2002

[Value of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in blood pressure profile determination in type 2 diabetes].

Risk assessment in the type 2 diabetic patients must take into account the major risk factors, particularly arterial hypertension which is commonly associated, increasing the risk for macrovascular and microvascular complications. The aim of this study is to determine whether ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides additional information to clinical (office) blood pressure measurement for the detection and control of hypertension in type 2 diabetic patients. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is more helpful than office blood pressure measurement for the evaluation of blood pressure levels. It is very valuable in type 2 diabetic patients for detecting autonomic dysfunction and elevated blood pressure load, which are associated with cardiovascular complications.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

[Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring vs. blood pressure self monitoring].

Determination of the actual blood pressure level increases with the number of blood pressure measurements. This explains why both ABPM and blood pressure self-measurement are superior to causal blood pressure determinations and why they show a higher correlation to a well-defined, hypertension-induced end organ damage (left ventricular hypertrophy). However, a disadvantage is that, up to now, the normal ranges were either insufficiently defined (ABPM) or not defined (SM). Although only limited experience exists in comparing ABPM with SM, it is suggested that both methods are valuable in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension.

Blood Pressure Monitors↗
PubMed1987

Twenty four hour intermittent, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Blood pressure and heart rate were measured every 30 minutes during the day and every hour during the night in 43 children (20 girls and 23 boys, aged 10 to 16) with a portable automated monitor. The apparatus was better accepted in girls than in boys, and the failure rate was lower during the day. The overall failure rate was 22%, which corresponds with comparable studies in adults. During the night blood pressure and heart rate fell by 10% and 14% of the daytime values, respectively. Mean (SD) blood pressure was significantly higher in boys than in girls (126/72 (17/8) v 109/64 (9/5) mm Hg) and measurements correlated positively with age, body weight, and height of the subjects. Heart rate was not significantly influenced by gender or age. A positive correlation between heart rate and blood pressure was found when expressed as standard normal deviations or hourly variations. In children intermittent monitoring of ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate is a suitable method for measuring individual diurnal patterns.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

[Comparative assessment of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and blood pressure measurement by the patient at home].

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) over 24 hours was compared to two blood pressure measurements taken in the morning by the 22 test persons themselves. ABPM was carried out at the beginning and the end of the study using a spacelabs SL 90207 apparatus. A semiautomatic sphygmomanometer was used for self-measurements (Visomat OZ 2). Monitored systolic and diastolic 24 hour values and the mean 24 hour value were on the average slightly higher than the self-measured pressures. Both methods yielded almost constant values over the test period. The mean of self-measured systolic and diastolic values from the second measurement over the entire two week period was significantly lower than the initially registered values (p < 0.001). Therefore a high correlation (r = 0.88, p < 0.001) was found between the mean systolic value of the second self-measurement with the mean ABPM 24 hour value; the corresponding correlation for the first measurement with ABPM was lower (r = 0.84, p < 0.01). The correlation of the diastolic values with ABPM was also lower (r = 0.70, p < 0.01). These results show that ABPM and self-measurements in the morning differ only slightly. The use and reliability of semiautomatic blood pressure measuring devices provide a practicable and economic alternative to ABPM.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Differential time effect profiles of amlodipine, as compared to valsartan, revealed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, self blood pressure measurements and dose omission protocol.

Amlodipine and valsartan are once-daily antihypertensive agents. To date, no comparison between these agents given as monotherapies was reported. This study was aimed to evaluate the therapeutic coverage and safety of amlodipine and valsartan in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparative study. After a 4-week placebo wash-out period, 246 outpatients with office diastolic blood pressure 95 < or = DBP < or =110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 180 mmHg, in addition to a mean daytime SBP and/or DBP > 135/85 mmHg on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), were randomly allocated to once-daily amlodipine 5-10 mg or valsartan 40-80 mg, for 12 weeks. In a subgroup of patients, 48-h ABPM were performed at the end of the treatment period. Dose omission was simulated by a single-blind placebo dosing. The primary efficacy end-point was the 24-h trough office BP after 12 weeks of active therapy. The reductions in 24-h trough BP were more pronounced in amlodipine compared with valsartan group as well in office [SBP: -17.8 +/- 10.9 vs. -14.6 +/- 11.2, P = 0.025, DBP: -12.7 +/- 7.2 vs. -10.9 +/- 7.8 mmHg, P = 0.06) as in ambulatory BP (SBP/DBP: -13.0 +/- 13.7/-10.8 +/- 9.1 vs. -7.2 +/- 19.4/-4.9 +/- 13.4 mmHg, P < 0.05). Forty-eight hours after the last active dose, the slope of the morning BP surge (4-9 h) was less steep with amlodipine vs. valsartan [DBP (P < 0.04), SBP (n.s.)]. Ankle edema were more often reported in amlodipine group. These results suggest a superior BP lowering and a longer duration of action with amlodipine compared with valsartan.

Amlodipine↗
PubMed2005

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: mean blood pressure and blood pressure load.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is commonly used to diagnose pediatric hypertension. Using ABPM, hypertension is usually defined as a mean BP greater than the 95th percentile for height. A BP load >30% (% of BP readings greater than the 95th percentile) is also used for the diagnosis of hypertension. The objective of this study was to determine the agreement between mean BP greater than the 95th percentile and 30% BP load for the diagnosis of hypertension using ABPM. All ABPM records (n =1,009) of patients referred for hypertension to a pediatric center were retrieved. Scans were excluded if: age was >19 and height <115 cm or >185 cm. Mean BP and BP loads were calculated for 728 scans. Agreement between mean BP greater than the 95th percentile for height and various BP loads were calculated using the kappa coefficient. The kappa coefficient of agreement between mean BP greater than the 95th percentile and 30% BP load was 0.56 and 0.57 for daytime systolic and diastolic BP, respectively. The agreement between mean night-time BP greater than the 95th percentile and 30% BP load was 0.70 and 0.66 for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively. Agreement between mean BP greater than the 95th percentile and 30% BP load is only moderate to good. Maximum agreement between mean BP greater than the 95th percentile and BP load is achieved at 50% BP load.

Blood Pressure↗
PubMed1995

[What are the therapeutic consequences of evaluating hypertensive patients with 24-hour blood pressure monitors and blood pressure self-measurement?].

Arterial hypertension is an important risk factor for excessive cardiovascular morbidity and mortality due to its high prevalence of about 20% in the adult population. Causal readings, which have been obtained for diagnosis and control of treatment in hypertension are of limited value. They are not reproducable due to physiologic variability of blood pressure, which causes a rise of blood pressure, if a straining situation (e.g. in doctor's office) occurs (white-coat-hypertension). Furthermore, no correlation between causal readings and signs of endorgan-damage (EOD) such as left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) can be observed. Especially the development of LVH comprises an independent risk factor and worsens prognosis. Results of ambulatory monitoring and self-measurement of blood pressure are reproducable and show an excellent correlation to EOD. Both methods are able to exclude white-coat-hypertension. Furthermore, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring allows to obtain blood pressure values during sleep, which may give further information concerning secondary hypertension, EOD and prognosis. Self measurement of blood pressure reinforces compliance of the patient and gives the possibility of self-titration and long-term control of antihypertensive drug treatment. The non-consensus concerning normal values is one limitation of both methods, but the cut-off level of office blood pressure recordings appears arbitrary, too. For optimal concomittance of hypertensives both methods have to reach more importance for diagnosis, evaluation of prognosis as well as treatment control.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Twenty-four-hour blood pressure monitoring, diurnal blood pressure profile and drug therapy under hospital care conditions.

OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the prevalence of nondipping in 24 h blood pressure monitoring (BPM) during hospital care with respect to antihypertensive drug therapy, diabetes, renal artery stenosis, and inverse diurnal blood pressure profiles. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive categorization of routine 24 h BPM was performed according to nondipping, drug therapy, normotension, severity of hypertension, diabetes, and inverse diurnal profile for 2 years. Retrospective analysis of patients examined by intraarterial renal artery angiography were performed. Nondipping was defined as a drop in night-time blood pressure (2200-0600 h) by less than 10% of the daytime values. Normotension was considered a daytime 24 h BPM value below 135/85 mmHg without antihypertensive therapy. RESULTS: We categorized 2105 24 h BPM protocols for patients of mean age 59 years. Nondipping was found for 26% of the normotensives, 38% of hypertensive patients not being administered medication, and 48% of drug-treated hypertensives. The significant increase in nondipping among patients under drug therapy applied for patients with daytime blood pressures below and above 135/85 mmHg and was thus independent of the severity of hypertension. Among the subgroup of 561 predominantly type 2 diabetic patients the prevalence of nondipping was increased significantly only for those patients who were hypertensive and being administered antihypertensive drugs. Subgroup analysis of patients using intraarterial angiography did not find different prevalences of nondipping for patients with and without renal artery stenosis. Patients with an inverse diurnal blood pressure profile and an increase in night-time blood pressure by more than 5% of the daytime values presented as a high-risk group because of morbidity associated with renal, cardiac, and cerebral disease. CONCLUSION: Nondipping is a common phenomenon among hospital patients. Drug therapy of hypertension should be directed not only towards the daytime blood pressure, but also toward alleviation of night-time hypertension.

Journal Article↗