Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Impact of repeated blood pressure measurement on blood pressure categorization in a population-based study from India

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 33, pages 594–601 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Often a single blood pressure (BP) measurement is used to diagnose and manage hypertension in busy clinics. However, repeated BP measurements have been shown to be more representative of the true BP status of the individual. Improper measurement of office BP can lead to inaccurate classification, overestimation of a patient’s true BP, unnecessary treatment, and misinterpretation of the true prevalence of hypertension. There is no consensus among major guidelines on the number of recommended measurements at a single visit or the method of arriving at final clinic BP reading. The participants of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), a nationwide survey conducted in India from 2015 to 2016, were used for the analysis. The prevalence and median difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) for single as well as combinations of two or more readings were calculated. Cross-tabulation was used to assess classification of individuals based on first BP reading compared with the mean of two or more BP measurements. There was a 63% higher prevalence of hypertension when only the first reading was considered for diagnosis in comparison to the mean of the second and third readings. A decrease of 3.6 mmHg and 2.4 mm Hg in mean SBP and DBP, respectively, was observed when the mean of the second and third readings was compared to the first reading. In those who are identified to have grade 1 or higher categories of hypertension, we recommend three BP measurements, with the mean of the second and third measurements being the clinic BP.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beevers G, Lip GY, O’Brien E. ABC of hypertension: blood pressure measurement. Part II-conventional sphygmomanometry: technique of auscultatory blood pressure measurement. BMJ . 2001;322:1043–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Handler J. The importance of accurate blood pressure measurement. Perm J. 2009;13:51–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:3021–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE Jr, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:e127–e248.

  5. Michael WA, Ernesto SL, William WB, Samueld M, Lars LH, John KG, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community: a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2014;32:3–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000000065

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. IIPS. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) 2015–16. Mumbai, India: International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India and Macro International; 2017;1–637.

  7. Einstadter D, Bolen SD, Misak JE, Bar-Shain DS, Cebul RD. Association of repeated measurements with blood pressure control in primary care. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:858–60. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0315

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Handler J, Zhao Y, Egan BM. Impact of the number of blood pressure measurements on blood pressure classification in US adults: NHANES 1999–2008. J Clin Hypertens. 2012;14:751–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.12009. Epub 2012 Oct 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Centre for Chronic Disease Control. NCD Initiative Tripura. https://tripurancd.org/graph.html. Accessed February 11, 2019.

  10. Geldsetzer P, Manne-Goehler J, Theilmann M, Davies JI, Awasthi A, Vollmer S, et al. Diabetes and hypertension in India: a nationally representative study of 1.3 million adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:363–72. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8094

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

AA is supported by Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi through INSPIRE Faculty program for some other work. No financial assistance was received in support of the study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Ambuj Roy, Dorairaj Prabhakaran

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Chronic Conditions and Injuries, Public Health Foundation of India, Gurugram, Haryana, India

    Arun Pulikkottil Jose, Ashish Awasthi, Dimple Kondal & Dorairaj Prabhakaran

  2. Economics and Planning Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi, India

    Mudit Kapoor

  3. Department of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Ambuj Roy

  4. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    Dorairaj Prabhakaran

Authors
  1. Arun Pulikkottil Jose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashish Awasthi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dimple Kondal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mudit Kapoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ambuj Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dorairaj Prabhakaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ambuj Roy or Dorairaj Prabhakaran.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

AP, DP, and AR are associated with the Certificate Course in Management of Hypertension (CCMH) in various capacities. The CCMH program is implemented by the Public Health Foundation of India in collaboration with the Centre for Chronic Disease Control, International Society of Hypertension, and British Irish Hypertension Society, and is supported in part by Sun Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jose, A.P., Awasthi, A., Kondal, D. et al. Impact of repeated blood pressure measurement on blood pressure categorization in a population-based study from India. J Hum Hypertens 33, 594–601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-019-0200-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-019-0200-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links