Abstract
Purpose of Review
As the evidence on different blood pressure phenotypes and their cardiovascular risks evolve, it is imperative to evaluate the reliability of office blood pressure (OBP), ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements and their associations with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
Recent Findings
HBP is more reliable in diagnosis of hypertension than OBP or ABP. HBP correlates better with left ventricular mass index (LVMI). Increasing systolic HBP is associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events. An elevated systolic ABP is also associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. ABP is a better predictor of cardiovascular events than OBP in diabetics.
Summary
ABP and HBP furnish additional information beyond OBP. They correlate better with cardiovascular outcomes and are more helpful with monitoring therapy than OBP. Comparative effectiveness studies of all three methods associating with cardiovascular outcomes are warranted.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Hypertension is a syndrome associated with target organ damage and graded risk for developing cardiovascular complications. Sustained high blood pressure is both the cardinal feature of the syndrome and the operational definition for diagnosis of hypertension. The hypertensive syndrome, nevertheless, is more than just high blood pressure. The conventional blood pressure measurement cut-offs used to define hypertension remain somewhat arbitrary and interventions that lower blood pressure to the same degree do not confer equivalent reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
The use of 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring technique identifies different blood pressure patterns in normotensive and hypertensive individuals. By comparing data from ABP monitoring and OBP measurement, four major phenotypes of hypertension emerge: sustained normotension, white-coat hypertension, masked hypertension, and sustained hypertension [1]. By measuring the blood pressure during sleep, additional phenotypes of hypertension based on absence, exaggeration, and reversal of physiological nocturnal lowering of blood pressure (“dipping”) are also identified. These phenotypes are termed nondippers, extreme dippers, and reverse dippers, respectively.
What Are the Different Blood Pressure Measurement Techniques and Their Reliability?
Three commonly used outpatient BP measurement methods are office/clinic blood pressure readings (office blood pressure measurement, OBP), 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ambulatory blood pressure measurement, ABP), and self-measurement at home (home blood pressure, HBP).
Most physicians continue to rely on OBP for diagnosis of hypertension and guidance of therapy. There is great variation in quality and accuracy of OBP. OBP can be imprecise and inconsistent due to poor measurement techniques such as the use of uncalibrated sphygmomanometers, incorrect cuff size, digit preference, talking during measurement, and anxiety [2]. OBP overestimates true BP readings for individuals with white coat hypertension while underestimating true BP readings for individuals with masked hypertension [3, 4].
ABP is lower than OBP in most hypertensive patients [5]. The diagnosis of white coat hypertension is made when an individual’s OBP is above the normal range and ABP is within the normal range. The diagnosis of masked hypertension is made when an individual’s OBP is within normal range and ABP records high BP readings. Many cross-sectional studies have related the extent of cardiovascular damage to both OBP and ABP, and most of them have shown that the correlation is higher for ABP [6]. As such, ABP is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than OBP. However, it has not been widely adopted because of its cost, inconvenience, proficiency gap, and limited reimbursement by third party payors.
HBP produces lower BP readings and correlates better with target organ damage and cardiovascular mortality than OBP [7]. Like ABP, HBP eliminates both the white coat effect and white coat hypertension, and identifies masked hypertension. HBP has been more widely adopted over the past two decades, especially more recently in the context of pandemic-related growth of telehealth for chronic disease management [8•]. HBP allows for a larger number of measurements to be gathered over a longer period of time compared to OBP and ABP. Other advantages of HBP are its ease of use, accessibility (without requiring a doctor’s office visit), affordability, and active participation of patients in their own diagnosis and treatment [9].
Clinical practice guidelines recommend using ABP and/or HBP for diagnosis of hypertension, detection of white coat hypertension, and screening of masked hypertension [10••, 11•, 12•, 13].
Relationship Between Different Blood Pressure Measurements and Hypertension-Related Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality
Several studies have assessed the relationship between different BP measurement methods and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. ABP and HBP characterize BP phenotypes that would not have been identified otherwise with OBP measurement alone [14••]. Findings from key studies are summarized below.
A systematic review of 23 studies found that HBP and ABP are better in predicting target organ damage assessed by the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) than OBP [15]. Another systematic review of 8 prospective longitudinal studies found that increasing systolic HBP was associated with increasing risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.01–1.29 per 10 mm Hg increase), cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02–1.64 per 10 mm Hg increase), and cardiovascular events (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09–1.2 per 10 mm Hg increase) [16]. A pooled analysis of 5 population-based cohort studies found that a 10 mm Hg increase in systolic HBP was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events in individuals with normal, optimal, or high normal HBP and mild hypertension [17]. This study also found that masked hypertension occurred in 54% of individuals with normal, optimal, or high normal OBP, and that masked hypertension was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.52–3.45).
Continuous HBP parameters have been associated with significantly higher risks for total cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiovascular events, and both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality with hazard ratios varying from 1.7 to 2.1 after adjustments for OBP and ABP. Uncontrolled total mean morning HBP, but not evening HBP, has been associated with significantly higher risks of all outcomes [18••]. An elevated systolic ABP is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality, independent of OBP (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.18–1.38 for a combined cardiovascular endpoint) [19]. ABP can predict long-term cardiovascular outcomes independently of OBP [20].
HBP is independently related to LVMI and predicts cardiovascular end organ damage better than OBP and ABP [21]. ABP, systolic HBP, and diastolic HBP are more reliable than OBP. A difference of 10 mm Hg higher systolic HBP and diastolic HBP are associated with 5 times and 4 times higher LVMI, respectively [22••]. A prospective 5-year follow-up study of nearly 300 treated hypertensives showed that LVMI positively correlated with both HBP and OBP, and the correlation tended to be stronger with HBP than OBP [23]. A small prospective observational study showed that HBP correlated significantly, and more tightly, with LVMI, albumin excretion rate, and global target organ damage than with OBP [24].
Analysis of the data from an observational study of more than 4,000 participants in Japan suggested that measuring the systolic blood pressure twice a day, in the morning and in the evening, at home, and calculating the difference between the two systolic blood pressures would be useful for risk stratification of cardiovascular disease outcomes since a higher morning-evening difference was associated with higher cardiovascular risks as compared to a medium morning-evening difference, independent of the average morning and evening systolic blood pressures [25••].
In patients with treated hypertension, a higher systolic ABP or diastolic ABP predicts cardiovascular events after adjustment for other cardiovascular risk factors, including OBP [26]. In a population-based cohort study of more than 10,000 participants, higher 24-h and nighttime blood pressure readings measured by ABP were significantly associated with greater risks of death and a composite cardiovascular outcome (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17–1.28 for total mortality; HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.30–1.43 for composite cardiovascular outcome) [27••].
Night Time Blood Pressure Measurement
At night, lack of pressor effect of physical activity, emotional stress, and other environmental factors that would occur during the day renders nocturnal blood pressure more reproducible and representative of one’s actual BP levels and target organ damage. Nocturnal blood pressure levels can better predict cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and overall mortality [28]. A morning blood pressure surge has been considered a predictor of all cardiovascular, cardiac, coronary, and cerebrovascular events [29].
Blood pressure normally falls 10–20% of daytime values during sleep, a physiological phenomenon termed dipping. Individuals with less than 10% fall in blood pressure at night are considered non-dippers. Reverse dipping occurs when nocturnal blood pressure increases instead of a physiological drop. Isolated nocturnal hypertension is defined as an elevated nighttime blood pressure with normal daytime blood pressure. ABP-derived non-dipping pattern is more closely associated with target organ damage and worsened cardiovascular outcomes than OBP [30].
BP variability (BPV) occurs when impaired sympathetic drive and baroreceptor dysfunction lead to fluctuations in BP over short term, mid term, or long term. Overall, BPV is typically assessed through standard deviation of average 24 h, daytime, or nighttime BP readings. BPV symbolizes an independent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and mortality [31]. BPV is increased in diabetic hypertensives, rendering them at an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and mortality [32]. OBP is not a good method to assess BPV. It would be impractical to repeat ABP frequently, and therefore, HBP is the most appropriate method for assessment of long-term BPV [33].
Diabetics are likely to benefit from ABP and/or HBP because of the high prevalence of non-dipping, reverse dipping, nocturnal systolic hypertension, and BPV among them [34•]. ABP is a better predictor of cardiovascular events than OBP in diabetics since diabetics are more likely to be nondippers than nondiabetics; therefore, OBP would not reflect the true cardiovascular risk [35].
Discussion
ABP and HBP provide additional information that cannot be ascertained from OBP. This additional information can be useful for diagnosis, monitoring of therapy and prognosis in hypertensives. HBP is a reliable method of measurement and less costly than ABP. A validated device and standardized procedures are essential for HBP, and good patient information and training are warranted. Although HBP can conventionally be used for measurement of daytime blood pressure only, newer semi-automatic HBP devices can additionally measure nighttime BP at fixed intervals during sleep providing information related to nocturnal dipping and early morning surge, which are important prognosticators.
Out of office blood pressure measurement methods, both HBP and ABP provide useful supplemental information for diagnosis, monitoring of therapy and prognosis of hypertensive patients. Since HBP and ABP are generally lower than OBP, they can confirm the diagnosis of hypertension for individuals with high OBP by ruling out white coat hypertension. HBP and ABP can also establish the diagnosis of masked hypertension for those with normal OBP.
HBP with or without additional supportive measures lowers blood pressure compared with usual care involving only OBP, but it is unclear whether this beneficial effect would persist beyond one year [36]. A recent pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomized controlled trials showed that one year of HBP increased the likelihood of intensification of antihypertensive drug therapy and improved blood pressure control at 5 years [37••]. Prognostic value of HBP is better than OBP and at least equal to ABP [38]. It is an important predictor of target organ damage, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality.
Some hesitation exists with utilizing HBP in the diagnosis of hypertension in real life settings. Barriers from the patients’ perspectives include incorporating scheduled HBP to daily routine in personal life, cost of purchasing a device, and the anxiety of excessive monitoring associated with having a device at home [22••]. The national analysis of HBP coverage and reimbursement policies within selected public and private payors/insurers across the USA revealed that there are currently no national coverage determinations or local coverage determinations that address blood pressure devices for HBP [39•]. Such lack of coverage causes the blood pressure devices to be an out-of-pocket expense to the patient [40]. Lack of patients’ adherence to the monitoring schedule, poor technique such as using the wrong sized cuff or poor placement, the use of inaccurate devices, and reporting bias can impose major challenges for physicians when relying on HBP readings to decide whether or not to treat the patient or modify therapy [9, 22••].
A study focused on reliability of HBP values found that patients were unaware of their device’s capability for storage of readings. The concordance rate between patient-reported values and those obtained by the monitor was 78%, and the BP values reported were significantly lower and less variable than those in the devices’ stored memory. The same study also found a higher discrepancy between stored and patient-reported values in type 2 diabetics with poor glycemic control [41].
Patient education on proper HBP measurement technique and the use of validated devices and cuffs are essential for obtaining accurate, reliable blood pressure readings. Patients should bring their monitors to the medical offices for training on proper measurement technique, and be provided written instructions regarding appropriately sized cuff placement in the proper location and alignment on the upper arm, sitting in the upright position with their feet flat on the ground and their arm supported at the level of the heart and avoid talking for the duration of the measurement [10••]. The UK’s NICE clinical practice guidelines recommend that self-measurement of blood pressure should be done in the morning and evening, in two consecutive measurements one minute apart, for a total of 4 daily measurements. HBP should be measured for a minimum of 4 consecutive days; however, 7 days are ideal [42•]. The blood pressure recordings should be reviewed by the physician during the office visit for treatment recommendations. Misreporting can be minimized by crosschecking the patient’s records against the automated memory stored in the blood pressure device.
Conclusion
HBP and ABP provide useful information for diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of hypertension that cannot be readily available from OBP alone. The existing body of evidence shows that HBP and/or ABP are essential for diagnosis and risk stratification in patients with hypertension. A recent study showing HBP is more reliable than OBP or ABP and correlates better with LVMI justifies its use for the diagnosis of hypertension and cardiovascular risk stratification [22••]. Additional comparative studies between ABP and HBP are still necessary since most studies compared between HBP and OBP or ABP and OBP but rarely compared between HBP and ABP or among all three methods. Intervention trials to determine if there is any difference in cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients managed based on out-of-office BP readings, such as ABP and/or HBP, compared to those managed based on conventional monitoring of OBP alone are warranted. If the value of HBP has been firmly established, further studies to determine the optimum frequency of monitoring will be crucial.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Viera AJ, Shimbo D, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure phenotypes and the risk for hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2014;16(10):481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-014-0481-5.
Kaczorowski J, Dawes M, Gelfer M, et al. Measurement of blood pressure: new developments and challenges. BC Med J. 2012;54(8):399–403.
Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, Ciucci A, Zampi I, Gattobigio R, Sacchi N, Porcellati C, et al. White coat hypertension and white coat effect. Similarities and differences. Am J Hypertens. 1995;8(8):790–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7061(95)00151-E.
Pickering TG, Gerin W, Schwartz JE, Spruill TM, Davidson KW, et al. Franz Volhard lecture: should doctors still measure blood pressure? The missing patients with masked hypertension. J Hypertens. 2008;26(12):2259–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e32831313c4.
Banegas JR, Ruilope LM, de la Sierra A, Vinyoles E, Gorostidi M, de la Cruz JJ, Segura J, Oliveras A, Martell N, García-Puig J, Williams B, et al. Clinic versus daytime ambulatory blood pressure difference in hypertensive patients: the impact of age and clinic blood pressure. Hypertension. 2017;69(2):211–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.08567.
Phillips RA, Diamond JA, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and echocardiography–noninvasive techniques for evaluation of the hypertensive patient. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1999;41(6):397–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0033-0620(99)70019-8.
Verberk WJ, Kroon AA, Kessels AG, de Leeuw PW, et al. Home blood pressure measurement: a systematic review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(5):743–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.05.058.
• Bress AP, Cohen JB, Anstey DE, Conroy MB, Ferdinand KC, Fontil V, Margolis KL, Muntner P, Millar MM, Okuyemi KS, Rakotz MK, Reynolds K, Safford MM, Shimbo D, Stuligross J, Green BB, Mohanty AF, et al. Inequities in hypertension control in the United States exposed and exacerbated by COVID-19 and the role of home blood pressure and virtual health care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(11):e020997. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.020997. This study supports the role of community-based interventions and blood pressure self-monitoring to help increase healthcare engagement following COVID-19 mitigation strategies.
Niiranen TJ, Hänninen MR, Johansson J, Reunanen A, Jula AM, et al. Home-measured blood pressure is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular risk than office blood pressure: the Finn-Home study. Hypertension. 2010;55(6):1346–51. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.149336.
•• Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE Jr, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, DePalma SM, Gidding S, Jamerson KA, Jones DW, MacLaughlin EJ, Muntner P, Ovbiagele B, Smith SC Jr, Spencer CC, Stafford RS, Taler SJ, Thomas RJ, Williams KA Sr, Williamson JD, Wright JT Jr, 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(19):2199–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.005. This report provides current US clinical practice guidelines for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hypertension.
• Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, Clement DL, Coca A, de Simone G, Dominiczak A, Kahan T, Mahfoud F, Redon J, Ruilope L, Zanchetti A, Kerins M, Kjeldsen SE, Kreutz R, Laurent S, Lip GYH, McManus R, Narkiewicz K, Ruschitzka F, Schmieder RE, Shlyakhto E, Tsioufis C, Aboyans V, Desormais I, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2018;36(10):1953–2041. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000001940. This report provides current European clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hypertension.
• Nerenberg KA, Zarnke KB, Leung AA, Dasgupta K, Butalia S, McBrien K, Harris KC, Nakhla M, Cloutier L, Gelfer M, Lamarre-Cliche M, Milot A, Bolli P, Tremblay G, McLean D, Padwal RS, Tran KC, Grover S, Rabkin SW, Moe GW, Howlett JG, Lindsay P, Hill MD, Sharma M, Field T, Wein TH, Shoamanesh A, Dresser GK, Hamet P, Herman RJ, Burgess E, Gryn SE, Grégoire JC, Lewanczuk R, Poirier L, Campbell TS, Feldman RD, Lavoie KL, Tsuyuki RT, Honos G, Prebtani APH, Kline G, Schiffrin EL, Don-Wauchope A, Tobe SW, Gilbert RE, Leiter LA, Jones C, Woo V, Hegele RA, Selby P, Pipe A, McFarlane PA, Oh P, Gupta M, Bacon SL, Kaczorowski J, Trudeau L, Campbell NRC, Hiremath S, Roerecke M, Arcand J, Ruzicka M, Prasad GVR, Vallée M, Edwards C, Sivapalan P, Penner SB, Fournier A, Benoit G, Feber J, Dionne J, Magee LA, Logan AG, Côté AM, Rey E, Firoz T, Kuyper LM, Gabor JY, Townsend RR, Rabi DM, Daskalopoulou SS, et al. Hypertension Canada’s 2018 guidelines for diagnosis, risk assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. Can J Cardiol. 2018;34(5):506–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2018.02.022. This report provides current Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hypertension.
Shimamoto K, Ando K, Fujita T, Hasebe N, Higaki J, Horiuchi M, Imai Y, Imaizumi T, Ishimitsu T, Ito M, Ito S, Itoh H, Iwao H, Kai H, Kario K, Kashihara N, Kawano Y, Kim-Mitsuyama S, Kimura G, Kohara K, Komuro I, Kumagai H, Matsuura H, Miura K, Morishita R, Naruse M, Node K, Ohya Y, Rakugi H, Saito I, Saitoh S, Shimada K, Shimosawa T, Suzuki H, Tamura K, Tanahashi N, Tsuchihashi T, Uchiyama M, Ueda S, Umemura S, et al. The Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension (JSH 2014). Hypertens Res. 2014;37(4):253–390. https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2014.20.
•• Aung K, Htay T, et al. Relationship between outpatient clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements and mortality. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2019;21(5):28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-019-1114-z. This review summarizes the relationship between outpatient clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
Bliziotis IA, Destounis A, Stergiou GS, et al. Home versus ambulatory and office blood pressure in predicting target organ damage in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2012;30(7):1289–99. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283531eaf.
Ward AM, Takahashi O, Stevens R, Heneghan C, et al. Home measurement of blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Hypertens. 2012;30(3):449–56. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834e4aed.
Asayama K, Thijs L, Brguljan-Hitij J, Niiranen TJ, Hozawa A, Boggia J, Aparicio LS, Hara A, Johansson JK, Ohkubo T, Tzourio C, Stergiou GS, Sandoya E, Tsuji I, Jula AM, Imai Y, Staessen JA, et al. Risk stratification by self-measured home blood pressure across categories of conventional blood pressure: a participant-level meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11(1):e1001591. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001591.
•• Cardoso CRL, Salles GF, et al. Prognostic impact of home blood pressures for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in patients with resistant hypertension: a prospective cohort study. Hypertension. 2021;78(5):1617–27. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18064. Home blood pressure measurements are predictive of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and improve cardiovascular risk stratification.
Conen D, Bamberg F, et al. Noninvasive 24 h ambulatory blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2008;26(7):1290–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282f97854.
Piper MA, Evans CV, Burda BU, Margolis KL, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP, et al. 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(3):192–204. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1539.
Shimbo D, Pickering TG, Spruill TM, Abraham D, Schwartz JE, Gerin W, et al. Relative utility of home, ambulatory, and office blood pressures in the prediction of end-organ damage. Am J Hypertens. 2007;20(5):476–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjhyper.2006.12.011.
•• Schwartz JE, Muntner P, Kronish IM, et al. Reliability of office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure measurements and correlation with left ventricular mass. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(25):2911–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.039. Findings from this study demonstrate that HBP is more reliable and strongly associated with LVMI than ABP or OBP.
Tsunoda S, Kawano Y, Horio T, Okuda N, Takishita S, et al. Relationship between home blood pressure and longitudinal changes in target organ damage in treated hypertensive patients. Hypertens Res. 2002;25(2):167–73. https://doi.org/10.1291/hypres.25.167.
Mulè G, Caimi G, Cottone S, Nardi E, Andronico G, Piazza G, Volpe V, Federico MR, Cerasola G, et al. Value of home blood pressures as predictor of target organ damage in mild arterial hypertension. J Cardiovasc Risk. 2002;9(2):123–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/174182670200900208.
•• Narita K, Hoshide S, Kario K, et al. Difference between morning and evening home blood pressure and cardiovascular events: the J-HOP Study (Japan Morning Surge-Home Blood Pressure). Hypertens Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-021-00686-2. This study demonstrates the association between the difference of morning and evening blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes.
Clement DL, De Buyzere ML, De Bacquer DA, de Leeuw PW, Duprez DA, Fagard RH, Gheeraert PJ, Missault LH, Braun JJ, Six RO, Van Der Niepen P, O’Brien E, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory blood-pressure recordings in patients with treated hypertension. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(24):2407–15. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022273.
•• Yang WY, Melgarejo JD, Thijs L, Zhang ZY, Boggia J, Wei FF, Hansen TW, Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Jeppesen J, Dolan E, Stolarz-Skrzypek K, Malyutina S, Casiglia E, Lind L, Filipovský J, Maestre GE, Li Y, Wang JG, Imai Y, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Sandoya E, Narkiewicz K, O’Brien E, Verhamme P, Staessen JA, et al. International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators. Association of office and ambulatory blood pressure with mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. J Am Med Associ. 2019;322(5):409–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.9811. This study supports that home blood pressure measurements may be considered optimal measurements for assessment of cardiovascular risk.
Parati G, Ochoa JE, Salvi P, Lombardi C, Bilo G, et al. Prognostic value of blood pressure variability and average blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(Suppl 2):S312–24. https://doi.org/10.2337/dcS13-2043.
Li Y, Thijs L, Hansen TW, Kikuya M, Boggia J, Richart T, Metoki H, Ohkubo T, Torp-Pedersen C, Kuznetsova T, Stolarz-Skrzypek K, Tikhonoff V, Malyutina S, Casiglia E, Nikitin Y, Sandoya E, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Ibsen H, Imai Y, Wang J, Staessen JA, et al. Prognostic value of the morning blood pressure surge in 5645 subjects from 8 populations. Hypertension. 2010;55(4):1040–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.137273.
Routledge FS, McFetridge-Durdle JA, Dean CR, et al. Night-time blood pressure patterns and target organ damage: a review. Can J Cardiol. 2007;23(2):132–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0828-282x(07)70733-x.
Stevens SL, Wood S, Koshiaris C, Law K, Glasziou P, Stevens RJ, McManus RJ, et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;354:i4098. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4098.
Ozawa M, Tamura K, Iwatsubo K, Matsushita K, Sakai M, Tsurumi-Ikeya Y, Azuma K, Shigenaga A, Okano Y, Masuda S, Wakui H, Ishigami T, Umemura S, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure variability is increased in diabetic hypertensives. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2008;30(3):213–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641960802068477.
Stergiou GS, Nasothimiou EG, et al. Home monitoring is the optimal method for assessing blood pressure variability. Hypertens Res. 2011;34(12):1246–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2011.145.
• Gunawan F, Ng HY, Gilfillan C, Anpalahan M, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study. Curr Hypertens Rev. 2019;15(2):135–43. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573402114666180607090205. This study demonstrates high prevalence of non-dipping, reverse dipping, nocturnal systolic hypertension, and masked hypertension in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Gorostidi M, de la Sierra A, González-Albarrán O, Segura J, de la Cruz JJ, Vinyoles E, Llisterri JL, Aranda P, Ruilope LM, Banegas JR, et al. Abnormalities in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hypertensive patients with diabetes. Hypertens Res. 2011;34(11):1185–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2011.100.
Uhlig K, Patel K, Ip S, Kitsios GD, Balk EM, et al. Self-measured blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(3):185–94. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00008.
•• Bryant KB, Sheppard JP, Ruiz-Negrón N, Kronish IM, Fontil V, King JB, Pletcher MJ, Bibbins-Domingo K, Moran AE, McManus RJ, Bellows BK, et al. Impact of self-monitoring of blood pressure on processes of hypertension care and long-term blood pressure control. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(15):e016174. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.016174. Self-measured blood pressure monitoring increases the likelihood of intensification of antihypertensive therapy, which can potentially translate to improved blood pressure control.
Fagard RH, Van Den Broeke C, De Cort P, et al. Prognostic significance of blood pressure measured in the office, at home and during ambulatory monitoring in older patients in general practice. J Hum Hypertens. 2005;19(10):801–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001903.
• National Association of Chronic Disease Directors. A national analysis of self-measured blood pressure monitoring coverage and reimbursement. https://chronicdisease.org/page/smbp/. 2020. Accessed 17 Oct 2021. This report summarizes reimbursement of an automatic, upper arm home blood pressure monitor by third-party payors in the USA.
George J, MacDonald T, et al. Home blood pressure monitoring. Eur Cardiol. 2015;10(2):95–101. https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2015.10.2.95.
Matsumoto S, Fukui M, Hamaguchi M, et al. Is home blood pressure reporting in patients with type 2 diabetes reliable? Hypertens Res. 2014;37(8):741–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2014.66.
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Hypertension in adults: diagnosis and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng136. 2019. Accessed 19 Oct 2021. This report provides current UK clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hypertension.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Ischemic Heart Disease
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Htay, T., Rosado, D., Quest, D. et al. Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement to Predict Hypertension-Related Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality. Curr Cardiol Rep 24, 439–444 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-022-01661-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-022-01661-0