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.

Differences in the diagnosis of high blood pressure using unattended and attended automated office blood pressure

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 36, pages 370–372 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Fig. 1: Differences between blood pressure measurements.

References

  1. Myers MG, Sierra A, Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J. Attended versus unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. J Hypertens. 2020;38:1407–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2199–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rabi DM, McBrien KA, Sapir-Pichhadze R, Nakhla M, Ahmed SB, Dumanski SM, et al. Hypertension Canada’s 2020 comprehensive guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. Can J Cardiol. 2020;36:596–624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andreadis EA, Geladari CV, Angelopoulos ET. The optimal use of automated office blood pressure measurement in clinical practice. J Clin Hypertens. 2020;22:555–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson KC, Whelton PK, Cushman WC, Cutler JA, Evans GW, Snyder JK, et al. Blood pressure measurement in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Hypertension. 2018;71:848–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bauer F, Seibert FS, Rohn B, Bauer KAR, Rolshoven E, Babel N, et al. Attended versus unattended blood pressure measurement in a real life setting. Hypertension. 2018;71:243–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Andreadis EA, Geladari CV, Angelopoulos ET, Savva FS, Georgantoni AI, Papademetriou V. Attended and unattended automated office blood pressure measurements have better agreement with ambulatory monitoring than conventional office readings. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e008994.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Andreadis EA, Thomopoulos C, Geladari CV, Papademetriou V. Attended versus unattended automated office blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2019;26:293–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Paterson JM, Dolovich L, Tu K. Thresholds for diagnosing hypertension based on automated office blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension. 2015;66:489–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wohlfahrt P, Cífková R, Krajčoviechová A, Šulc P, Bruthans J, Linhart A, et al. Comparison of three office blood pressure measurement techniques and their effect on hypertension prevalence in the general population. J Hypertens. 2020;38:656–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, Agabiti Rosei E, Azizi M, Burnier M, et al. 2018 Practice Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension and the European Society of Cardiology: ESH/ESC Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2018;36:2284–309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Feitosa ADM, Mota-Gomes MA, Barroso WS, Miranda RD, Barbosa ECD, Pedrosa RP, et al. Correlation between office and home blood pressure in clinical practice: a comparison with 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension Guidelines recommendations. J Hypertens. 2020;38:179–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq; grant 306154/2017-0) for WNJ.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Pesquisas Clínicas do Centro Universitário Cesmac/Hospital do Coração de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil

    Annelise M. G. Paiva, Marco A. Mota-Gomes, Thomás C. P. Azevedo & Natalia W. Amorim

  2. Laboratory of Immunopathology Keizo Asami, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil

    Audes D. M. Feitosa & Wilson Nadruz Jr.

  3. Pronto Socorro Cardiológico de Pernambuco (PROCAPE), University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil

    Audes D. M. Feitosa

  4. UNICAP Clinical Research Institute, Recife, PE, Brazil

    Audes D. M. Feitosa

  5. Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Decio Mion Jr.

  6. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Andrei C. Sposito & Wilson Nadruz Jr.

Authors
  1. Annelise M. G. Paiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco A. Mota-Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Audes D. M. Feitosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomás C. P. Azevedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Natalia W. Amorim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Decio Mion Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrei C. Sposito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wilson Nadruz Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AMGP, MAM-G, and WNJ contributed to the design of the work, the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafted the manuscript. ADMF, TCPA, NWA, DMJ, and ACS contributed to the acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation of data, and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilson Nadruz Jr..

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paiva, A.M.G., Mota-Gomes, M.A., Feitosa, A.D.M. et al. Differences in the diagnosis of high blood pressure using unattended and attended automated office blood pressure. J Hum Hypertens 36, 370–372 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-021-00593-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-021-00593-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links