Good correlation with out-of-office readings, virtual elimination of white-coat effect
An accurate blood pressure (BP) reading can be obtained if measurement guidelines are followed properly. However, BP readings recorded in routine clinical practice are often inaccurate and much higher than mean awake ambulatory BP values and readings obtained by home measurement. In studies that have included data on office BP readings that were recorded manually in routine clinical practice (ie, not in the context of a research study),1,2 mean office BP readings are about 10/5 mmHg higher than mean awake ambulatory BP values and home BP readings. Several factors contribute to the poor quality of manually recorded office readings, including the anxiety patients experience in the doctor’s office, poor measurement technique and patient–observer interaction. The development of a new class of automated sphygmomanometers has made it possible to eliminate many of these factors, with the result being more accurate office BP measurement that is less subject to white-coat effect (office-induced hypertension).
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Myers MG, Godwin M, Dawes M, et al. Measurement of blood pressure in the office: recognizing the problem and proposing the solution. Hypertension 2010; 55: 195-200.
- 2. Myers MG, Godwin M. Automated office blood pressure. Can J Cardiol 2012; 28: 341-346.
- 3. Myers MG. A proposed algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using automated office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2010; 28: 703-708.
- 4. Godwin M, Birtwhistle R, Delva D, et al. Manual and automated office measurements in relation to awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Fam Pract 2011; 28: 110-117.
- 5. Greiver M, White D, Kaplan DM, et al. Where should automated blood pressures be done? Pilot RCT of BpTRU measurement taken in private or nonprivate areas of a primary care office. Blood Press Monit 2012; 17: 137-138.
- 6. Myers MG, Godwin M, Dawes M, et al. Conventional versus automated measurement of blood pressure in primary care patients with systolic hypertension: randomised parallel design controlled trial. BMJ 2011; 342: d286. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d286.
- 7. Quinn RR, Hemmelgarn BR, Padwal RS, et al. The 2010 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: part 1 – blood pressure measurement, diagnosis and assessment of risk. Can J Cardiol 2010; 26: 241-248.
- 8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Hypertension: clinical management of primary hypertension in adults. NICE clinical guidelines 127. London: NICE, 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13561/56008/56008.pdf (accessed Jul 2012).
- 9. Head GA, McGrath BP, Mihailidou AS, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in Australia: 2011 consensus position statement. J Hypertens 2012; 30: 253-266.
- 10. Nelson MR, Quinn S, Bowers-Ingram L, et al. Cluster-randomized controlled trial of oscillometric vs manual sphygmomanometer for blood pressure management in primary care (CRAB). Am J Hypertens 2009; 22: 598-603.
No relevant disclosures.