Abstract
Accuracy in blood pressure measurement is critical for proper hypertension diagnosis and treatment in clinical practice. Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) can simplify the measurement process, reducing human error and minimizing the white-coat effect in the unattended mode. The aim of this study was to compare AOBP, both unattended and nurse attended, with conventional office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement techniques. Four different methods of blood pressure measurement were performed in a cohort of hypertensive patients: conventional office blood pressure (OBP), unattended automated office blood pressure (uAOBP), nurse attended automated office blood pressure (nAOBP), and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM). uAOBP and nAOBP were conducted with the same rigorous standardized procedure. We enrolled 118 consecutive patients. nAOBP values were slightly higher than uAOBP ones (respectively 132.8/73.3 ± 19.4/12.9 and 129.2/71.1 ± 19.0/12.3 mmHg), even if the difference was influenced by order of execution of AOBP measurement. nAOBP was significantly lower than HBPM and OBP (mean values 135.2/80.9 ± 16.6/8.1 and 140.9/84.6 ± 18.7/10.8 mmHg, respectively). AOBP, either attended or unattended, provides lower values than conventional OBP. uAOBP and nAOBP values showed small differences, even if they are not completely interchangeable. This evidence reflects a lower white-coat effect, even in nurse attended technique, but is also due to a lower measurement error through the application of a rigorous standardized protocol.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Introduction
Accuracy in blood pressure (BP) measurement is a key point in hypertension diagnosis and treatment. For a long time, auscultatory office blood pressure (OBP) measurement has been considered the gold standard technique. Nonetheless, several factors may contribute to OBP inaccuracy: (i) systematic methodological errors during BP recording, due to poor adherence to BP measurement recommendations; (ii) inadequate preparation of patient on behavior during measurement; (iii) white-coat effect related to the presence of medical staff [1, 2].
In the last years, oscillometric devices have gained growing diffusion, contributing to simplification of measurement and reduction of observer error [3, 4]. Furthermore, hypertension guidelines recommend the use of out-of-office techniques, in order to reduce the white-coat effect contribution in overestimating BP values; these techniques include home BP monitoring (HBPM) and the 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) [5, 6]. Additionally, in the office setting, oscillometric devices have been implemented by the development of automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement, which is completely conducted by a programmed device in a quiet room, separate from health staff; the BP device performs three to five sequential BP measurements and calculates BP mean [1].
Since its introduction, several studies have used AOBP measurements with either unattended (healthcare personnel absent during measurement) or attended methodology (healthcare personnel present) [7]. Unattended AOBP (uAOBP) provides more accurate BP readings when compared with conventional OBP, with good reproducibility in repeated office visits and in different settings, and has a good agreement with awake ABPM and HBPM values [8]. Furthermore, uAOBP minimizes the white-coat effect and has demonstrated a good correlation with intermediate measures of target organ damage [8,9,10,11]. Attended AOBP may be less standardized and less accurate; a recent meta-analysis has demonstrated that attended technique produces higher systolic and diastolic BP levels when compared with uAOBP, even in a high heterogeneity of included studies [12]. Part of this heterogeneity can be explained by the presence of different healthcare personnel during attended AOBP measurements. Previous studies have highlighted that nurse obtains systematically lower BP values than physician [13]; this observation has been attributed to a lower white coat effect, but may also be related to focused nurse educational programs [14]. Furthermore, nurse BP has demonstrated a good predictive value of hypertension-mediated organ damage [15].
The aim of this study was to compare uAOBP and attended AOBP conducted in presence of a nurse to conventional OBP and to an out-of-office technique (HBPM).
Subjects and methods
The study included hypertensive subjects, enrolled in the Hypertension Unit of A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Italy.
uAOBP was performed with the same validated device Omron HEM-907XL (Omron, Kyoto, Japan). Three readings were automatically performed in a 2-min interval, after a resting period of 5 min. Before the beginning, a trained nurse chose the proper cuff and explained the entire procedure to the patient, giving complete instructions about the right posture and behavior during the measurement. The device detected systolic and diastolic BP of every measurement and related average values; recorded values were hidden until the end of uAOBP evaluation.
The same protocol was used in the presence of a nurse, not interacting with the patient, in order to obtain the nurse attended AOBP (nAOBP) readings. The order of execution of uAOBP and nAOBP was randomized. The randomization was performed using computer‐generated balanced blocks, with blocks’ size of 4 subjects and a 1:1 assignment ratio to each group.
These two BP measurements were followed by conventional OBP measurement, recorded by a physician during the medical evaluation with the same device, used in manual activation modality. The measurements were performed, in accordance with current Guidelines, with the patient in a seated position and the cuffed arm supported, after at least 5 min of rest, considering means of three consecutive readings [6].
Patients were instructed by telephone to properly execute HBPM the week before the medical evaluation. They were asked to perform 2 BP readings (the second measurement 1–2 min after the first one) in the morning and 2 readings in the evening for seven consecutive days, using their own devices. Patients reported all the collected data and the BP device model. We considered as home BP values the mean of all BP values obtained, except for those measured on the first day. Only the home pressure values obtained with ESH/ISH-validated automatic arm devices were included in the analysis [16, 17].
Data about biometrics, clinical history, and pharmacological treatment were collected for every patient during the medical evaluation. Written informed consent was collected from all participants. The study was approved by the local ethical committee (CEI 652).
The collected data were analyzed with the R software version 3.2.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Continuous variables normally distributed were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), continuous variables non-normally distributed are expressed as median and interquartile range and categorical variables were expressed as absolute number and percentage. Statistical significance was fixed at 0.05. For the evaluation of agreement among BP measurement techniques, we performed the Bland–Altman analysis and expressed our results with boxplot and Bland–Altman plot. Locally estimated scatterplot smoothing curves were applied to each Bland–Altman plot. Analysis of variance and Bonferroni T test were used to compare BP differences among groups of age, sex, and other demographical and clinical characteristics.
Results
The overall population included 118 subjects, with a mean age of 58.6 ± 15.3 years and 51% of male sex prevalence. Anthropometric and clinical features are summarized in Table 1.
OPB, uAOBP, and nAOBP values were available for all study populations, while HBPM data were available only for 86 (78%) subjects. Average BP values for each technique (nAOBP, uAOBP, OBP, HBPM) are reported in Table 2 and Fig. 1.
Mean nAOBP was significantly lower than OBP, with a mean difference of −8.1 ± 15.7 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and −11.4 ± 9.7 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP). On the other hand, 32 subjects (27.1%) presented higher nAOBP when compared with OBP; in this group, nine subjects (7.6%) presented HBPM values ≥ 135/85 mmHg with OBP whithin reference values.
Furthermore, uAOBP measurement showed slightly lower values compared with nAOBP, with a mean difference of 3.6 ± 12.2 mmHg for SBP and 2.3 ± 7.3 mmHg for DBP. Nevertheless, when comparing the two randomized groups for order of execution of uAOBP and nAOBP, nAOBP was significantly higher when this was the first performed measurement technique (difference 3.7 ± 3.8 vs 0.9 ± 8.9 mmHg respectively, p = 0.03).
Finally, HBPM showed higher values when compared with nAOBP and uAOBP, particularly for DBP (mean difference 2.8/7.5 ± 19.0/11.4 mmHg with nAOBP and 7.2/10.1 ± 18.3/10.5 mmHg with uAOBP). nAOBP and HBPM showed a trend to increasing differences in higher BP values range, both for SBP and DBP. A similar trend was found between uAOBP and HBPM.
Thirty-two patients were unable to provide complete HBPM measurements. When analyzing the subgroup of subjects unable of performing properly HBPM, no significant differences were observed in mean age, education level, mean BP, sex, number of anti-hypertensive drugs.
Fourty-one subjects also underwent ABPM measurement (Table 1s—Online Supplementary); in this subgroup, ABPM Daytime BP values were higher than AOBP, either unattended or nurse attended (Fig. 1s—Online Supplementary).
The differences between BP measurement techniques were not influenced by age, sex, antihypertensive drugs, BMI, smoking, renal function, hypercholesterolemia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Discussion
Precise determination of BP is critical to accurately diagnose and appropriately treat hypertension, to assess achievement of target BP, to predict and manage cardiovascular risk. Several BP measurement techniques are currently available; the introduction of automated BP measurement techniques has reduced human error, but improvement in BP assessment performance is still necessary [18]. Training courses, monitoring of measurement procedures, and application of standardized protocols may represent instruments for further reducing inaccuracy.
Results of our study highlighted that AOBP, either attended or unattended, provides lower values than conventional OBP. It is probably due to the limitation of white-coat response to physicians, as previously described [3]. This evidence is in line with the results of several previous studies [19] and underlines the need of identifying different reference BP values for AOBP and OBP, both for hypertension diagnosis and for assessment of BP control in treated subjects, as these represent two distinct measurement techniques.
The comparison of nAOBP and uAOBP showed a difference in BP values, even if small and on average clinically not significant. This difference is likely not attributable to measurement methodology, as similar rigorous standardized procedures have been applied in nAOBP and uAOBP. The white-coat effect due to healthcare professionals presence is probably partially implied in this evidence, with an attenuated, but still present, adrenergic response during nurse compared to physician BP measurement session [20]. Nonetheless, the difference between uAOBP and nAOBP was further attenuated when attended technique was performed after unattended one, minimizing the conceivable contribution of nurse white-coat effect. Adaptation to measurement and longer resting time are probably implied and contribute to the observed difference between nAOBP and uAOBP.
Furthermore, nurse BP values were more similar to uAOBP than to OBP and a higher difference between physician BP values (OBP) and nurse BP values (nAOBP) was observed in comparison with previously reported in other studies [13]. This evidence suggests the importance of a rigorous standardized procedure and a stage of visit completely dedicated to BP measurement, in reducing inaccuracy. On additional support, in our study HBPM showed higher values when compared to uAOBP and nAOBP, suggesting that, even in presence of proper education of the patient, HBPM may lessen accuracy and be a less standardizable technique, except to strict experimental conditions [21]. Thirty-two patients were unable to complete the home measurement protocol, despite previous provided instructions and the availability of validated HBPM devices. In addition to this evidence, a significant proportion of subjects presented higher AOBP when compared with OBP and had uncontrolled Home BP values, suggesting the potential application of this technique in screening for masked hypertension [22].
In the subgroup of subjects who underwent ABPM, AOBP values were lower when compared to Daytime ABPM; these results are in agreement with previous evidence [23], even though the small size of the sample does not allow definite conclusions.
In conclusion, AOBP, both unattended and nurse attended, is a technique that allows a limitation of white-coat effect and improvement of accuracy, by reduction of measurement error, application of a standardized protocol, and control of interfering factors, through a measurement-dedicated stage of the visit. It can be also useful in identifying subjects with masked hypertension. nAOBP and uAOBP demonstrated lower values when compared to out-of-office techniques, with higher accuracy and a potential valuable predictive value of cardiovascular risk and hypertension mediated organ damage.
The main limitations of this study are represented by: (I) the availability of ABPM measurement only for a subgroup of patients, as comparison out-of-office technique; (II) the availability of HBPM measurement only for a subgroup of patients, because of the inability of 32 subjects to perform the home measurement, despite detailed preliminary instruction.
Summary Table
What is known about topic
-
Automated office blood pressure measurement reduces the white-coat effect and observer error in blood pressure assessment.
-
Nurse blood pressure measurement usually results in lower blood pressure values when compared to physician measurement.
What this study adds
-
Blood pressure values are not only influenced by the white-coat effect but particularly by procedure standardization.
-
Automated office blood pressure measurement showed lower values even when compared to home blood pressure.
-
Automated office blood pressure measurement, even in attended technique, demonstrated potential as a screening method for masked hypertension.
References
Myers MG. Eliminating the human factor in office blood pressure measurement. J Clin Hypertens. 2014;16:83–86.
Vongpatanasin W. Accurate blood pressure in the office do it right and don’t fudge the numbers. Circulation. 2018;138:1771–3.
Myers MG. The great myth of office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2012;30:1894–8.
Padwal R, Campbell NRC, Schutte AE, Olsen MH, Delles C, Etyang A et al. Optimizing observer performance of clinic blood pressure measurement: a position statement from the Lancet Commission on Hypertension Group. Rev Panam Salud Publica/Pan Am J Public Heal. 2020;44. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2020.88.
Parati G, Omboni S, Bilo G. Why is out-of-office blood pressure measurement needed?: Home blood pressure measurements will increasingly replace ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Hypertension. 2009;54:181–6.
Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Rosei EA, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for thevmanagement of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3021–104.
Johnson KC, Whelton PK, Cushman WC, Cutler JA, Evans GW, Snyder JK, et al. Blood pressure measurement in SPRINT (systolic blood pressure intervention trial). Hypertension. 2018;71:848–57.
Andreadis EA, Papademetriou V, Geladari CV, Kolyvas GN, Angelopoulos ET, Aronis KNHome. automated office, and conventional office blood pressure as predictors of cardiovascular risk. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2017;11:165–.e2.
Campbell NRC, McKay DW, Conradson H, Lonn E, Title LM, Anderson T. Automated oscillometric blood pressure versus auscultatory blood pressure as a predictor of carotid intima–medial thickness in male firefighters. J Hum Hypertens. 2007;21:588–90.
Andreadis EA, Agaliotis GD, Angelopoulos ET, Tsakanikas AP, Chaveles IA, Mousoulis GP. Automated office blood pressure and 24-h ambulatory measurements are equally associated with left ventricular mass index. Am J Hypertens. 2011;24:661–6.
Kaczorowski J, Chambers LW, Dolovich L, Paterson JM, Karwalajtys T, Gierman T, et al. Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 Community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP). BMJ. 2011;342:422.
Andreadis EA, Thomopoulos C, Geladari CV, Papademetriou V. Attended versus unattended automated office blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2019;26:293–303.
Clark CE, Horvath IA, Taylor RS, Campbell JL. Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pr. 2014;64:e223–32.
Himmelfarb CRD, Commodore-Mensah Y, Hill MN. Expanding the role of nurses to improve hypertension care and control globally. Ann Glob Heal. 2016;82:243–53.
Veerman DP, De Blok K, Delemarre BJM, Van, Montfrans GA. Office, nurse, basal and ambulatory blood pressure as predictors of hypertensive target organ damage in male and female patients. J Hum Hypertens. 1996;10:9–15.
Stergiou GS, O’Brien E, Myers M, Palatini P, Parati G, Stride BP. An international initiative for accurate blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2020;38:395–9.
STRIDE BP: an international initiative for accurate blood pressure measurement. Validated blood pressure monitors. https://stridebp.org/bp-monitors.
Elias MF, Goodell AL. Human errors in automated office blood pressure measurement: still room for improvement. Hypertension. 2020;77:6–15.
Pappaccogli M, Di Monaco S, Perlo E, Burrello J, D’Ascenzo F, Veglio F, et al. Comparison of automated office blood pressure with office and out-off-office measurement techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension. 2019;73:481–90.
Grassi G, Seravalle G, Buzzi S, Magni L, Brambilla G, Quarti-Trevano F, et al. Muscle and skin sympathetic nerve traffic during physician and nurse blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1131–5.
Muntner P, Shimbo D, Carey RM, Charleston JB, Gaillard T, Misra S, et al. Measurement of blood pressure in humans: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Hypertension. 2019;73:E35–E66.
Myers MG, Godwin M, Dawes M, Kiss A, Tobe SW, Kaczorowski J. The conventional versus automated measurement of blood pressure in the office (CAMBO) trial: masked hypertension sub-study. J Hypertens. 2012;30:1937–41.
Drawz PE, Pajewski NM, Bates JT, Bello NA, Cushman WC, Dwyer JP, et al. Effect of intensive versus standard clinic-based. Hypertens Manag Ambul Blood Press Hypertens. 2017;69:42–50.
Acknowledgements
We thank Mrs. Roberta Pellegrini for her dedication and precious support. The study did not receive any financial assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fanelli, E., Di Monaco, S., Pappaccogli, M. et al. Comparison of nurse attended and unattended automated office blood pressure with conventional measurement techniques in clinical practice. J Hum Hypertens 36, 833–838 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-021-00575-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-021-00575-8
- Springer Nature Limited