Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Free access
Methodology
2 September 2019

To what extent can the chosen blood pressure measurement technique affect the outcomes of an observational survey?

Authors: Otto Mayer, Jr [email protected], Jitka Seidlerová, Markéta Mateřánková, Julius Gelžinský, Štěpán Mareš, Martina Rychecká, Veronika Svobodová, Jan Bruthans, and Jan FilipovskýAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 8, Number 11
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0149
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: We analyzed to what extent measurement protocol influenced individual blood pressure (BP) and achievement of treatment target in patients with coronary heart disease. Methods: In a subsample of Czech EUROASPIRE III–V survey participants (n = 913), we compared the per-protocol BP measurement (by automated oscillometric device OMRON at the beginning of survey procedure) with control auscultatory measurement (by physician during interview). Results: Per-protocol approach produced significantly (p < 0.0001) higher BP values (by 9/6 mmHg in median) than auscultatory measurements and led to markedly higher proportion of patients over target BP (less than 140/90 mmHg; 59.3 vs 34.9% [p < 0.0001], per-protocol vs auscultatory technique, respectively). Conclusion: Per-protocol oscillometric technique was not equivalent to conventional auscultatory measurement and seriously over-rated the real nonachievement of BP target in observational surveys.

Supplementary Material

File (suppl_file.docx)

References

1.
Pyorala K, De Backer G, Graham I, Poole-Wilson P, Wood D. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Recommendations of the task force of the European Society of Cardiology, European Atherosclerosis Society and European Society of Hypertension. Eur. Heart J. 15(10), 1300–1331 (1994).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Recommendations of the Second Joint Task Force of European and other societies on coronary prevention. Eur. Heart J. 19(10), 1434–1503 (1998).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
De Backer G, Ambrosioni E, Borch-Johnsen K et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Third Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice. Eur. Heart J. 24(17), 1601–1610 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Graham I, Atar D, Borch-Johnsen K et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: full text. Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Prev. Rehabil. 14(Suppl. 2), S1–113 (2007).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur. Heart J. 33(13), 1635–1701 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S et al. 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts): Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 23(11), Np1–np96 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
EUROASPIRE. A European Society of Cardiology survey of secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: principal results. EUROASPIRE Study Group. European Action on Secondary Prevention through Intervention to Reduce Events. Eur. Heart J. 18(10), 1569–1582 (1997).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Lifestyle and risk factor management and use of drug therapies in coronary patients from 15 countries; principal results from EUROASPIRE II Euro Heart Survey Programme. Eur. Heart J. EUROASPIRE II study Group. 22(7), 554–572 (2001).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Kotseva K, Wood D, De Backer G, De Bacquer D, Pyorala K, Keil U. EUROASPIRE III: a survey on the lifestyle, risk factors and use of cardioprotective drug therapies in coronary patients from 22 European countries. Eur. J. Cardiovasc. Prev. Rehabil. 16(2), 121–137 (2009).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Kotseva K, Wood D, De Bacquer D et al. EUROASPIRE IV: A European Society of Cardiology survey on the lifestyle, risk factor and therapeutic management of coronary patients from 24 European countries. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 23(6), 636–648 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K et al. 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 34(28), 2159–2219 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Landgraf J, Wishner SH, Kloner RA. Comparison of automated oscillometric versus auscultatory blood pressure measurement. Am. J. Cardiol. 106(3), 386–388 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Heinemann M, Sellick K, Rickard C, Reynolds P, McGrail M. Automated versus manual blood pressure measurement: a randomized crossover trial. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 14(4), 296–302 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Raptis AE, Spring MW, Viberti G. Comparison of blood pressure measurement methods in adult diabetics. Lancet 349(9046), 175–176 (1997).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Kotseva K, Wood D, De Bacquer D et al. EUROASPIRE IV: a European Society of Cardiology survey on the lifestyle, risk factor and therapeutic management of coronary patients from 24 European countries. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 23(6), 636–648 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 67(6), 361–370 (1983).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Kotseva K, De Backer G, De Bacquer D et al. Lifestyle and impact on cardiovascular risk factor control in coronary patients across 27 countries: Results from the European Society of Cardiology ESC-EORP EUROASPIRE V registry. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 26(8), 824–835 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Mayer OJ, Bruthans J, Timoracká K. The changes in cardiovascular prevention practice between 1995 and 2012 in the Czech Republic. A comparison of EUROASPIRE I, II, III and IV study. Cor. Vasa 56(2), e91–e97 (2013).
Google Scholar
19.
Marshall T. Misleading measurements: modeling the effects of blood pressure misclassification in a United States population. Med. Decis. Making 26(6), 624–632 (2006).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Tran NTT, Blizzard CL, Luong KN et al. Misclassification of blood pressure of Vietnamese adults when only a single measurement is used. J. Am. Soc. Hypertens. 12(9), 671–680 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
O'Brien E, Pickering T, Asmar R et al. Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults. Blood Press. Monit. 7(1), 3–17 (2002).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|