Smartphone Application-Assisted Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Compared With Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Hypertension: the AMUSE-BP Study

The role of wearable home blood pressure monitoring in detecting out-of-office control status

Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring is currently recommended for management of hypertension. Nonetheless, traditional HBP protocols could overlook diurnal fluctuations, which could also be linked with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. In this observational study, we studied among a group of treated hypertensive patients (N = 62, age: 52.4 ± 10.4 years) by using out-of-office ABP and wearable HBP. They received one session of 24-h ABP measurement with an oscillometric upper-arm monitor, and totally three sessions of 7-day/6-time-daily wearable HBP measurement separated in each month with HeartGuide. Controlled hypertension is defined as an average BP <130/80 mmHg for both daytime ABP and HBP. There was substantial reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC 0.883-0.911) and good reproducibility (Cohen's kappa = 0.600) for wearable HBP measurement, especially before breakfast and after dinner. Among all patients, 27.4% had both uncontrolled HBP and ABP, 30.6% had uncontrolled HBP only, while 6.5% had uncontrolled ABP only. Female gender and increased numbers of anti-hypertensive agents are correlated with controlled hypertension. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension had a significantly higher maximal daytime blood pressure, which was previously signified as an imperial marker for cardiovascular risk. In conclusion, wearable HBP monitoring in accordance with a dedicated daily-living schedule results in good reliability and reproducibility. Patients with an uncontrolled wearable HBP should benefit from repeated HBP or ABP measurement for risk stratification.

Comparison of office, home and ambulatory blood pressure measurements in hypertensive and suspected hypertensive SWICOS participants

PURPOSE

Hypertension should be confirmed with the use of home BP measurement (HBPM) or 24h ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM). The aim of our study was to compare measurements obtained by OBPM, HBPM and ABPM in individuals with elevated OBPM participating in the population-based Swiss Longitudinal Cohort Study (SWICOS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Participants with OBPM ≥140/90 mmHg assessed their BP using HBPM and ABPM. The cut-off for hypertension was ≥135/85 mmHg for HBPM, ≥130/80 mmHg for ABPM. White-coat hypertension (WCH) was defined as normal HPBM and ABPM in participants not taking antihypertensive drugs. Uncontrolled hypertension was defined as hypertension in HBPM or ABPM despite antihypertensive treatment.

RESULTS

Of 72 hypertensive subjects with office BP ≥140/90 mmHg and valid measurements of HBPM and ABPM, 39 were males (aged 62.8 ± 11.8y), 33 were females (aged 57.4 ± 14.2y). Hypertension was confirmed with HBPM and ABPM in 17 participants (24%), with ABPM only in 24 further participants (33%), and with HBPM only in 2 further participants (3%). Participants who had hypertension according to ABPM but not HBPM were younger (59 ± 11 y versus 67 ± 16 y; p < 0.001) and more frequently still working (83% versus 23%; p < 0.001). The prevalence of WCH was 28%. Among the 32 subjects taking antihypertensive drugs, uncontrolled hypertension was found in 49%.

CONCLUSION

This population-based study found a high prevalence of WCH and potential uncontrolled hypertension among individuals with elevated OBPM. This study, therefore, supports the ESH recommendations of complementing OBPM by ABPM or HBPM. The use of HBPM instead of ABPM for the confirmation of hypertension in individuals with elevated OBPM might lead to underdiagnosis and uncontrolled hypertension, in particular in the younger working population. In these individuals, this study suggests using ABPM instead of HBPM.