Out-of-Office Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents: Disparate Findings by Using Home or Ambulatory Monitoring

Aghia Sophia Children’s Hospital, Athínai, Attica, Greece
American Journal of Hypertension (Impact Factor: 2.85). 11/2004; 17(10):869-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.05.015
Source: PubMed


The validity of home blood pressure (HBP) measurements in children has not been evaluated, although in clinical practice such measurements are being used. This study compares HBP, with clinic (CBP) and daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in children and adolescents.
Fifty-five children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years were evaluated with CBP (three visits), HBP (6 days), and daytime ABP. Mean age was 12.3 +/- 2.9 (SD) years, 33 boys. According to the Task Force CBP criteria, 26 were hypertensives, 6 had high-normal BP (hypertensive group), and 23 were normotensives (normotensive group).
In the hypertensive group, CBP was 130.8 +/- 7.6/72.5 +/- 8.1 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic), HBP 118.9 +/- 6.3/73.7 +/- 6.7, and ABP 130.8 +/- 8.1/75.5 +/- 8.3. In the normotensive group, CBP was 112.8 +/- 8/63.1 +/- 6.3, HBP 106.7 +/- 8.4/67.2 +/- 5.2, and ABP 123.9 +/- 7.2/72 +/- 4.3. Strong correlations (P < .001) were observed between CBP-HBP (r = 0.73/0.57, systolic/diastolic), CBP-ABP (r = 0.59/0.49), and HBP-ABP (r = 0.72/0.66). In normotensive subjects, ABP was higher than both CBP and HBP for systolic and diastolic BP (P < .001). Furthermore, systolic HBP was lower than CBP (P < .01), whereas the opposite was true for diastolic BP (P < .05). In hypertensive subjects systolic HBP was lower than both CBP and ABP (P < .001), whereas CBP did not differ from ABP. For diastolic BP no differences were found among measurement methods.
These data suggest that, in contrast to adults in whom HBP is close to the levels of daytime ABP, in children and adolescents HBP appears to be significantly lower than daytime ABP. Until more data become available, caution is needed in the interpretation of HBP in children and adolescents.

Download full-text


Available from: Constantinos J Stefanidis, Oct 06, 2015
22 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Office and out-of-office blood pressure measurements are being used for the diagnosis of hypertension in children and adolescents. The US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute have recently presented a new classification of blood pressure. On the basis of office measurements the 90th, 95th and 99th percentile for gender, age and height are used to classify children and adolescents as normotensive, pre-hypertensive and stage-1 or stage-2 hypertensive. Although auscultation using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer remains the recommended method, accumulating evidence suggests that ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is useful for the detection of white-coat hypertension and the prediction of target organ damage in children and adolescents. Studies have shown ambulatory blood pressure to be more reproducible than office measurements and normative tables for ambulatory measurements have been developed from cross-sectional studies in children and adolescents. In regard to home measurements in children, there are limited data from small trials showing lower blood pressure levels than daytime ambulatory blood pressure. In conclusion, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is already finding a role as a supplementary source of information in children and adolescents, whereas at present home measurements should not be used for decision making in this population.
    Blood Pressure Monitoring 01/2005; 9(6):293-6. DOI:10.1097/00126097-200412000-00004 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Am J Hypertens (2005) 18, 44A–44A; doi:10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.03.121 P-103: Office and out-of-office blood pressure in normotensive adolescents and young adults with type-1 diabetes George Stergiou1, Christina Alamara1, Constantinos Stefanidis1 and Adriani Vazeou11Hypertension Center, Third Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; Department of Nephrology, P. & A. Kyriakou Children's Hospital, Athens, Greece; First Department of Pediatrics, P. & A. Kyriakou Children's Hospital, Athens, Greece.
    American Journal of Hypertension 04/2005; DOI:10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.03.121 · 2.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To evaluate the reproducibility of blood pressure measured at home (HBP) in comparison with ambulatory (ABP) and clinic blood pressure (CBP) in children and adolescents. Participants and methods: Individuals aged 8-17 years who had been referred for elevated CBP were included. CBP was measured at two visits, HBP on 5 days and ABP for 24 h. A second session including all the above measurements was performed after 8 weeks. The reproducibility of CBP (second visit of each session), HBP (average of days 2-5 of each session) and ABP (average 24-h, awake and asleep) was quantified using test-retest correlations coefficients (r) and the standard deviation of differences (SDD) between repeated measurements. Results: Sixteen individuals were included [mean age 13.3±2.9 (SD)] years, range 8-17, nine boys]. According to Task Force CBP criteria, eight were classified as hypertensives, three as high normal and five as normotensives. The reproducibility of HBP (systolic/diastolic r, 0.74/0.82, SDD 7.0/4.3) was superior to that of CBP (r, 0.63/0.80, SDD 10.4/6.3). However, ABP appeared to provide the most reproducible values (r, 0.87/0.84, SDD 5.5/4.3 for 24-h ABP; r, 0.85/0.76, SDD 5.9/5.0 for awake; r, 0.76/0.79, SDD 7.0/5.0 for asleep ABP). Aspects of the diurnal ABP variation were poorly reproducible (r, 0.62/0.14, SDD 6.8/5.5 for awake-asleep ABP difference; r, 0.55/0.26, SDD 0.07/0.11 for awake : asleep ratio). Conclusion: These data suggest that in children and adolescents home blood pressure measurements are more reproducible than clinic measurements. However, 24-h ambulatory monitoring appears to provide the most reproducible blood pressure values.
    Blood Pressure Monitoring 05/2005; 10(3):143-147. DOI:10.1097/00126097-200506000-00005 · 1.53 Impact Factor
Show more