Automated office blood pressure--the preferred method for recording blood pressure

Cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia for untreated hypertension with comorbid insomnia disorder: The SLEEPRIGHT clinical trial

Insomnia and poor sleep are associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its precursors, including hypertension. In 2022, the American Heart Association (AHA) added inadequate sleep to its list of health behaviors that increase the risk for CVD. It remains unknown, however, whether the successful treatment of insomnia and inadequate sleep can reduce heightened CVD risk. SLEEPRIGHT is a single-site, prospective clinical trial designed to evaluate whether the successful treatment of insomnia results in improved markers of CVD risk in patients with untreated hypertension and comorbid insomnia disorder. Participants (N = 150) will undergo baseline assessments, followed by a 6-week run-in period after which they will receive cognitive behavior therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), comprised of 6 hourly sessions with an experienced CBT-I therapist over a 6-week period. In addition to measures of insomnia severity, as well as both subjective and objective measures of sleep, the primary outcome measures are nighttime blood pressure (BP) and BP dipping assessed by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Secondary outcomes include several CVD risk biomarkers, including clinic BP, lipid profile, vascular endothelial function, arterial stiffness, and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity. Data analysis will evaluate the association between improvements in insomnia and sleep with primary and secondary CVD risk biomarker outcomes. The SLEEPRIGHT trial (ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT04009447) will utilize CBT-I, the current gold standard treatment for insomnia disorder, to evaluate whether reducing insomnia severity and improving sleep are accompanied by improved biomarkers of CVD risk in patients with untreated hypertension.

Conventional office blood pressure measurements and unattended automated office blood pressure compared with home self-measurement and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether automated office blood pressure (BP) (AOBP) measurement is a better method for measuring BP in the office than conventional techniques and an alternative to out-of-office BP measurements: home-self BP (HSBP) or ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of 74 patients and compared AOBP with the conventional technique using a mercury sphygmomanometer and with both out-to-office BP measurements: HSBP of 7 days (three measurements in the morning, afternoon, and night) and daytime ABPM. In addition, we compared BP values obtained using HSBP and ABPM to determine their level of agreement. We used ANOVA to compare means, Bland-Altman, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for concordance.

RESULTS

BP values obtained by the two office methods were similar: conventional 147.2/85.0 mmHg and AOBP 146.0/85.5 mmHg ( P > 0.05) with good agreement (ICC 0.85). The mean SBP differences between AOBP and HSBP ( P < 0.001) and between AOBP and ABPM ( P < 0.001) were 8.6/13.0 mmHg with limits of agreement of -21.2 to 38.5 and -18.4 to 44.3 mmHg, respectively. The average SBP values obtained by HSBP were 4.3 mmHg higher than those obtained by ABPM ( P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed good agreement and concordance between the two office methods as well between the two out-to-office methods, although there was a significant difference in the mean SBP between the HSBP and ABPM. Moreover, AOBP was not comparable to either HSBP or ABPM; therefore, the estimation of out-to-office BP using AOBP is not supported.

Implementing ABPM into Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the data supporting the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and to provide practical guidance for practitioners who are establishing an ambulatory monitoring service.

RECENT FINDINGS

ABPM results more accurately reflect the risk of cardiovascular events than do office measurements of blood pressure. Moreover, many patients with high blood pressure in the office have normal blood pressure on ABPM-a pattern known as white coat hypertension-and have a prognosis similar to individuals who are normotensive in both settings. For these reasons, ABPM is recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension in patients with high office blood pressure before medical therapy is initiated. Similarly, the 2017 ACC/AHA High Blood Pressure Clinical Practice Guideline advocates the use of out-of-office blood pressure measurements to confirm hypertension and evaluate the efficacy of blood pressure-lowering medications. In addition to white coat hypertension, blood pressure phenotypes that are associated with increased cardiovascular risk and that can be recognized by ABPM include masked hypertension-characterized by normal office blood pressure but high values on ABPM-and high nocturnal blood pressure. In this review, best practices for starting a clinical ABPM service, performing an ABPM monitoring session, and interpreting and reporting ABPM data are described. ABPM is a valuable adjunct to careful office blood pressure measurement in diagnosing hypertension and in guiding antihypertensive therapy. Following recommended best practices can facilitate implementation of ABPM into clinical practice.

Applying the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial Results to Older Adults

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01206062) was stopped early because of significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease in participants randomized to a systolic blood pressure target of 120 mmHg (intensive) than in those randomized to 140 mmHg (standard). The cardiovascular outcome benefit was also identified in subjects aged 75 and older assigned to the intensive arm-34% lower than in the standard arm-in addition to 33% lower all-cause mortality at 3.14 years of follow-up. These beneficial outcomes held in older participants characterized as frail or with impaired gait speed. This article addresses several questions that need to be considered in applying the SPRINT results to the clinical care of older adults: Why are the SPRINT results discordant from those of epidemiological studies? Do the SPRINT findings generalize to the frail, older adults that I care for? Were there more adverse events in the intensive treatment group? What about cognitive and kidney outcomes? What are future considerations, and how low should we go?