Article
Blood pressure self-measurement in normotensive and hypertensive patients.
Department of Medicine, University of Zürich, Switzerland.
Journal of hypertension. Supplement: official journal of the International Society of Hypertension
06/1989;
7(3):S59-63.
pp.S59-63
Source: PubMed
-
Citations (0)
- Cited In (2)
-
Article: Report of the Canadian Hypertension Society Consensus Conference: 2. Diagnosis of hypertension in adults.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To update recommendations for the diagnosis of mild hypertension in adults and to assess the role of echocardiography, self-measurement of blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Literature reviews of previous consensus conferences were updated with searches of MEDLINE for the period Jan. 1, 1988, to Nov. 15, 1991, and supplemented by reference lists and personal files. Panel members selected relevant articles and rated them according to methodologic criteria. The data extracted concerned the measurement of blood pressure, the diagnosis of hypertension, the treatment of mild hypertension, and the reliability and validity of echocardiography, self-measurement of blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis of mild hypertension. The recommendations made were graded according to the level of evidence available, circulated to many experts and approved at a consensus conference. Previous recommendations for the accurate measurement of blood pressure remain mostly unchanged. Antihypertensive treatment should be prescribed for patients (including the elderly) with an average diastolic blood pressure of at least 100 mm Hg, for those with isolated systolic hypertension (systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg) and for patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 99 mm Hg and target-organ damage. Clinical judgement is required in treating patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 99 mm Hg without target-organ damage, and individual risk for cardiovascular disease must be taken into account. There is insufficient evidence to warrant the routine use of echocardiography, self-measurement of blood pressure or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis. Recent high-quality evidence supports several new recommendations for the diagnosis of mild hypertension in adults. Additional research is needed to determine the role of echocardiography, self-measurement of blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.Canadian Medical Association Journal 09/1993; 149(4):409-18. · 8.22 Impact Factor -
Article: Reference values for self-recorded blood pressure: a meta-analysis of summary data.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The widespread clinical use of self-recorded blood pressure measurement is limited by the lack of generally accepted reference values. The purpose of this study was therefore to perform a meta-analysis of summary data in an attempt to determine an operational threshold for self-recorded blood pressures. STUDIES AND METHODS: Seventeen studies, including a total of 5422 subjects, were reviewed. Eight of these 17 studies included both normotensive and untreated hypertensive subjects, while the other 9 reports included normotensive subjects only. Within each study an operational cutoff point between normotension and hypertension was derived by means of the mean+2 SDs and the 95th percentiles of the self-recorded blood pressure in normotensive subjects. These 2 methods were contrasted with 2 other techniques that have been applied in the literature to calculate (1) the self-recorded pressures equivalent to a conventional pressure of 140 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic by means of regression analysis and (2) the self-recorded blood pressures at the percentiles corresponding to a conventional pressure of 140/90 mm Hg. The latter 2 methods were applied in untreated subjects not selected on the basis of their blood pressure. With weighting for the number of subjects included in the various studies, the self-recorded blood pressure averaged 115/71 mm Hg in normotensive persons and 119/74 mm Hg in untreated subjects not selected on the basis of their blood pressure. The reference values for self-recorded blood pressures determined by the mean+2 SDs (137/89 mm Hg) or the 95th percentile (135/86 mm Hg) of the distribution in normotensive subjects were concordant within 2/3 mm Hg, whereas the cutoff points derived with the regression and percentile methods were considerably lower, ie, 125/79 and 129/84 mm Hg, respectively. Until the relationship between self-recorded pressure and the incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is further clarified by prospective studies, a mean self-recorded blood pressure above 135 mm Hg systolic or 85 mm Hg diastolic may be considered hypertensive.Archives of Internal Medicine 03/1998; 158(5):481-8. · 11.46 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
Keywords
21 borderline hypertensive subjects
39 hypertensive
4.0 mmHg higher
average casual readings
blood pressure measurement
casual blood pressure values
diastolic blood pressure readings
diastolic readings
home blood pressure measurement
home-registered blood pressures
hypertensive subjects
qualitative difference
self-determined values
self-measured diastolic blood pressure readings
self-registered blood pressures
self-registered diastolic values
significant relationship
study casual blood pressure
two methods
values higher
