Which arm to measure the blood pressure?

Prevalence of inter-arm blood pressure difference among young healthy adults: Results from a large cross-sectional study on 3235 participants

More than 100 years ago, the difference in blood pressure (BP) between arms was first reported. Recent studies have shown that different blood pressure between the right and left arm leads to cardiovascular events. Three thousand and thirty volunteers participated in our cross-sectional study. The sIABP was equal in 163 of 3030 persons (5.37%), dIABP was equal in 222 out of 3030 persons (7.32%), from a total of 792/3030 persons (26.1%) sIAD >10 mmHg, and dIAD > or = 10 mmHg was found in 927 out of 3030 persons (33.5%) in the right arm, and 32.4% in the left arm. In 2692 of 3030 volunteers BP, initially recorded in the dominant hand (right arm), showing sIAD > or = 10 mmHg was found in 943 (37.1%) volunteers, and when the first measurement was done in 338 left-handed volunteers it showed sIAD > or = 10 mmHg in 112 of 338 (34.1%), P < .001; 95% confidence interval for systolic right hand were (115.73: 116.73), and for systolic left hand 95% confidence interval were (113.17:114.15). Furthermore, height, residential area, and heart rate above 90 bpm had a significant effect on IAD (P = . 041, 0.002, <001, respectively). In conclusion, significant inter-arm systolic and diastolic BP differences above (10 mm Hg) is common in the young, healthy population. Hand dominance is a significant consideration while measuring blood pressure. It is mandatory to measure blood pressure in both arms in a sitting position with a stable condition.

•

Blood pressure should be measured in both arms due to differences in values between them to avoid under-diagnosis of hypertension.

•

Accurate measurement of blood pressure is mandatory to prevent cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal diseases.

•

In this study, the prevalence of IAD among young, healthy adults was reported.

•

Hand dominance is a significant consideration while measuring blood pressure.

Characterizing Agreement in the Level of Interarm Blood Pressure Readings of Adults in the Emergency Department (CALIBRATE Study)

Background: Increased interarm systolic blood pressure difference (IASBPD) is one of the major predictors of cardiovascular disease. An IASBPD of >10 mmHg is of clinical significance. However, studies have reported a high number of patients visiting the emergency department (ED) with high IASBPD and varying correlation of IASBPD to age, ethnic background, and comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes. Objective: The CALIBRATE study aimed to measure the IABPDs in the multiethnic patient population presenting to the ED in Qatar and to assess the distribution of IASBPD in this population. Methods: In a sitting position, two consecutive blood pressure (BP) measurements were recorded from the right and left arms for each participant using a calibrated automated machine and appropriate cuff sizes. The data were recorded using predefined data fields, including patient demographics, past medical, and social and family history. The continuous variables were reported as mean or median based on the distribution of data. The data were analyzed using Stata MP 14.0. Results: A total of 1800 patients, with a mean age of 34 (10) years, were prospectively recruited from the ED. The median absolute systolic BP difference (ΔSBP) between the right and left arms was 6 (3-10) mmHg, and it was the same for the first (ΔSBP1) and the second readings (ΔSBP2). The absolute average of ΔSBP1 and ΔSBP2 was 7 (4-10) mmHg. The difference in systolic BP difference (SBP) of < 20 mmHg for interarm blood pressure was seen in the 95th percentile of the population. No meaningful association could be detected between the IABPD and the study variables such as age, demographics, regions of interest, and risk factors. Conclusion: In population presenting to the ED, the IASBPD of at least 20 mmHg reached at the 95th percentile, validating the known significant difference. The utility of SBP difference can be improved further by taking the average of two individual readings.

Short-term blood pressure variability - variation between arm side, body position and successive measurements: a population-based cohort study

Background

Precise blood pressure (BP) measurements are central for the diagnosis of hypertension in clinical and epidemiological studies. The purpose of this study was to quantify the variability in BP associated with arm side, body position, and successive measurements in the setting of a population-based observational study. Additionally, we aimed to evaluate the influence of different measurement conditions on prevalence of hypertension.

Methods

The sample included 967 men and 812 women aged 45 to 83 years at baseline. BP was measured according to a standardized protocol with oscillometric devices including three sitting measurements at left arm, one simultaneous supine measurement at both arms, and four supine measurements at the arm with the higher BP. Hypertension was defined as systolic BP (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP (DBP) ≥90 mmHg. Variability in SBP and DBP were analysed with sex-stratified linear covariance pattern models.

Results

We found that overall, no mean BP differences were measured according to arm-side, but substantial higher DBP and for men also higher SBP was observed in sitting than in supine position and there was a clear BP decline by consecutive measurement. Accordingly, the prevalence of hypertension depends strongly on the number and scheme of BP measurements taken to calculate the index values.

Conclusions

Thus, BP measurements should only be compared between studies applying equal measurement conditions and index calculation. Moreover, the first BP measurement should not be used to define hypertension since it overestimates BP. The mean of second and third measurement offers the advantage of better reproducibility over single measurements.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0468-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prevalence of systolic inter-arm differences in blood pressure for different primary care populations: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various prevalence figures have been reported for inter-arm differences in blood pressure (IAD); variation may be explained by differing population vascular risk and by measurement method.

AIM

To review the literature to derive robust estimates of IAD prevalence relevant to community populations.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for cross-sectional studies likely to represent general or primary care populations, reporting prevalence of IAD and employing a simultaneous method of measurement. Using study-level data, pooled estimates of mean prevalence of systolic IADs were calculated and compared using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Eighty IAD studies were identified. Sixteen met inclusion criteria: pooled estimates of prevalence for systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg were 11.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.1 to 13.6) in hypertension, 7.4% (95% CI = 5.8 to 9.2) in diabetes, and 3.6% (95% CI = 2.3 to 5.0) for a general adult population (P<0.001 for subgroup differences). Differences persisted for higher cut-off values. Prevalences were lower for East Asian than for Western populations and were overestimated by sequential measurement where this could be compared with simultaneous measurement within studies (relative risk for IAD: 2.9 [95% CI = 2.1 to 4.1]). Studies with higher mean absolute systolic pressures had higher prevalences for a systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Prevalences of IADs rise in relation to underlying cardiovascular comorbidities of the population studied, and are overestimated threefold when sequential measurement is used. Population-specific variation in prevalences of IAD should be taken into account in delivering clinical care and in planning future studies.

Inter-arm blood pressure difference and mortality: a cohort study in an asymptomatic primary care population at elevated cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Differences in blood pressure between arms are associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in cohorts with established vascular disease or substantially elevated cardiovascular risk.

AIM

To explore the association of inter-arm difference (IAD) with mortality in a community-dwelling cohort that is free of cardiovascular disease.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cohort analysis of a randomised controlled trial in central Scotland, from April 1998 to October 2008.

METHOD

Volunteers from Lanarkshire, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, free of pre-existing vascular disease and with an ankle-brachial index ≤0.95, had systolic blood pressure measured in both arms at recruitment. Inter-arm blood pressure differences were calculated and examined for cross-sectional associations and differences in prospective survival. Outcome measures were cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality during mean follow-up of 8.2 years.

RESULTS

Based on a single pair of measurements, 60% of 3350 participants had a systolic IAD ≥5 mmHg and 38% ≥10 mmHg. An IAD ≥5 mmHg was associated with increased cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.07) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.44, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.79). Within the subgroup of 764 participants who had hypertension, IADs of ≥5 mmHg or ≥10 mmHg were associated with both cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 2.63, 95% CI = 0.97 to 7.02, and adjusted HR 2.96, 95% CI = 1.27 to 6.88, respectively) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.67, 95% CI = 1.05 to 2.66, and adjusted HR 1.63, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.50, respectively). IADs ≥15 mmHg were not associated with survival differences in this population.

CONCLUSION

Systolic IADs in blood pressure are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events, including mortality, in a large cohort of people free of pre-existing vascular disease.

The difference in blood pressure readings between arms and survival: primary care cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a difference in systolic blood pressure readings between arms can predict a reduced event free survival after 10 years.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Rural general practice in Devon, United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

230 people receiving treatment for hypertension in primary care.

INTERVENTION

Bilateral blood pressure measurements recorded at three successive surgery attendances.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cardiovascular events and deaths from all causes during a median follow-up of 9.8 years.

RESULTS

At recruitment 24% (55/230) of participants had a mean interarm difference in systolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more and 9% (21/230) of 15 mm Hg or more; these differences were associated with an increased risk of all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 6.5 and 3.1, 1.6 to 6.0, respectively). The risk of death was also increased in 183 participants without pre-existing cardiovascular disease with an interarm difference in systolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more or 15 mm Hg or more (2.6, 1.4 to 4.8 and 2.7, 1.3 to 5.4). An interarm difference in diastolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more was weakly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in systolic blood pressure between arms can predict an increased risk of cardiovascular events and all cause mortality over 10 years in people with hypertension. This difference could be a valuable indicator of increased cardiovascular risk. Bilateral blood pressure measurements should become a routine part of cardiovascular assessment in primary care.

Patient assessment: validation of a nursing instrument

The aim of this study is to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Byron Physical Assessment Framework (BPAF). The BPAF is a systems based checklist of physiological measurements, signs, and symptoms designed to structure and document the assessment of a patients physical condition by nursing staff. Initially the BPAF was refined using extensive literature review and expert opinion to improve the comprehensiveness and clarity for its intended purpose. As a result the content validity of the BPAF was supported. Inter-rater reliability between both expert-expert and novice-expert pairings was assessed. A total of 68 assessments were conducted by pairs of qualified nurses with patients on general medical and surgical wards and a nursing-led unit in one London Hospital. Reliability of the dichotomous data items of the BPAF was found to be generally good (kappa > 0.6) with only one item showing a poor reliability (kappa < 0.20). Reliability for continuous items such as pulse and respiratory rate was surprisingly low with evidence of large variation between raters in addition to systematic bias. With relatively little teaching, novice assessors were able to use the BPAF and achieve good inter-rater reliability with expert assessors although this was lower than the reliability of the expert diads. The utilisation of the BPAF to fulfil intended purpose was assessed by examining completed assessments and the outcome in terms of nurses' actions in light of new abnormal findings. Both were found to be fair, showing that the BPAF does affect the actions of nurses although it could be utilised more.