Accurate measurement of blood pressure

An analysis of blood pressure measurement in a primary care hospital in Swaziland

Background

Measurement of blood pressure (BP) is done poorly because of both human and machine errors.

Aim

To assess the difference between BP recorded in a pragmatic way and that recorded using standard guidelines; to assess differences between wrist- and mercury sphygmomanometer-based readings; and to assess the impact on clinical decision-making.

Setting

Royal Swaziland Sugar Corporation Mhlume hospital, Swaziland.

Method

After obtaining consent, BP was measured in a pragmatic way by a nurse practitioner who made treatment decisions. Thereafter, patients had their BP re-assessed using standard guidelines by mercury (gold standard) and wrist sphygmomanometer.

Results

The prevalence of hypertension was 25%. The mean systolic BP was 143 mmHg (pragmatic) and 133 mmHg (standard) using a mercury sphygmomanometer; and 140 mmHg for standard BP assessed using wrist device. The mean diastolic BP was 90 mmHg, 87 mmHg and 91 mmHg for pragmatic, standard mercury and wrist, respectively. Bland Altman analyses showed that pragmatic and standard BP measurements were different and could not be interchanged clinically. Treatment decisions between those based on pragmatic BP and standard BP agreed in 83.3% of cases, whilst 16.7% of participants had their treatment outcomes misclassified. A total of 19.5% of patients were started erroneously on anti-hypertensive therapy based on pragmatic BP.

Conclusion

Clinicians need to revert to basic good clinical practice and measure BP more accurately in order to avoid unnecessary additional costs and morbidity associated with incorrect treatment resulting from disease misclassification. Contrary to existing research, wrist devices need to be used with caution.

Determining which automatic digital blood pressure device performs adequately: a systematic review

The aim of this study is to systematically examine the proportion of accurate readings attained by automatic digital blood pressure (BP) devices in published validation studies. We included studies of automatic digital BP devices using recognized protocols. We summarized the data as mean and s.d. of differences between measured and observed BP, and proportion of measurements within 5 mm Hg. We included 79 articles (10 783 participants) reporting 113 studies from 22 different countries. Overall, 25/31 (81%), 37/41 (90%) and 34/35 (97%) devices passed the relevant protocols [BHS, AAMI and ESH international protocol (ESH-IP), respectively]. For devices that passed the BHS protocol, the proportion of measured values within 5 mm Hg of the observed value ranged from 60 to 86% (AAMI protocol 47–94% and ESH-IP 54–89%). The results for the same device varied significantly when a different protocol was used (Omron HEM-907 80% of readings were within 5 mm Hg using the AAMI protocol compared with 62% with the ESH-IP). Even devices with a mean difference of zero show high variation: a device with 74% of BP measurements within 5 mm Hg would require six further BP measurements to reduce variation to 95% of readings within 5 mm Hg. Current protocols for validating BP monitors give no guarantee of accuracy in clinical practice. Devices may pass even the most rigorous protocol with as few as 60% of readings within 5 mm Hg of the observed value. Multiple readings are essential to provide clinicians and patients with accurate information on which to base diagnostic and treatment decisions.

Difference in Blood Pressure Readings with Mercury and Automated Devices: Impact on Hypertension Prevalence Estimates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

OBJECTIVES

(1) To compare blood pressure (BP) readings with an automated arm cuff oscillometric device (AutoBP) to readings with a mercury sphygmomanometer (HgBP) and (2) to evaluate the impact on the prevalence of hypertension (HBP) in a population-based survey.

METHODS

(1) In a convenience sample ("Comparison Study"), we measured BP with both AutoBP (Visomat OZ2) and HgBP and we modeled BP difference (DeltaBP = HgBP-AutoBP) with multiple regression analysis. (2) Using DeltaBP, we calculated HgBP in a survey previously conducted in Dar es Salaam ("Population Survey") in which BP was measured with the automatic device Visomat OZ2 and we compared the prevalence of HBP (> or =140/90 mmHg or treatment).

RESULTS

In the Comparison Study (404 subjects aged 25-64), systolic/diastolic BP was higher by 4.4/4.7 mmHg (SE: 0.4/0.3) with HgBP than AutoBP. The prevalence of HBP was 42% with HgBP and 36% with AutoBP (relative difference of 14%). DeltaBP was associated with age, BP and arm circumference. In the Population Survey (9.254 subjects aged 25-64), the prevalence of HBP was 17% with calculated HgBP and 14% with AutoBP (relative difference of 20%).

CONCLUSION

A small systematic bias in BP readings between two different devices had large impact on hypertension prevalence estimates. This suggests that automated devices used in epidemiological studies should be validated with particular care.

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement - is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations.

The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors.

To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin.

The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic.

Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as:

- accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability,

- diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician,

- individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences,

- difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders,

- pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless,

- the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs.

The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II).