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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Blood pressure variability assessed by office, home, and ambulatory measurements: comparison, agreement, and determinants

Hypertension Research volume 44, pages 1617–1624 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

The present study compared the blood pressure variability (BPV) among office (OBP), home (HBP), and ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) measurements and assessed their determinants, as well as their agreement in identifying individuals with high BPV. Individuals attending a hypertension clinic had OBP measurements (2–3 visits) and underwent HBP monitoring (3–7 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements) and ABP monitoring (24 h, 20-min intervals). BPV was quantified using the standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variability independent of the mean (VIM) using all BP readings obtained by each method. A total of 626 participants were analyzed (age 52.8 ± 12.0 years, 57.7% males, 33.1% treated). Systolic BPV was usually higher than diastolic BPV, and out-of-office BPV was higher than office BPV, with ambulatory BPV giving the highest values. BPV was higher in women than men, yet it was not different between untreated and treated individuals. Associations among BPV indices assessed using different measurement methods were weak (r 0.1–0.3) but were stronger between out-of-office BPV indices. The agreement between methods in detecting individuals with high BPV was low (30–40%) but was higher between out-of-office BPV indices. Older age was an independent determinant of increased OBP variability. Older age, female sex, smoking, and overweight/obesity were determinants of increased out-of-office BPV. These data suggest that BPV differs with different BP measurement methods, reflecting different pathophysiological phenomena, whereas the selection of the BPV index is less important. Office and out-of-office BP measurements appear to be complementary methods in assessing BPV.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005;365:217–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Stergiou GS, Parati G. How to best assess blood pressure? The ongoing debate on the clinical value of blood pressure average and variability. Hypertension. 2011;57:1041–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Salvi P, Lombardi C, Bilo G. Prognostic value of blood pressure variability and average blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:S312–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nardin C, Rattazzi M, Pauletto P. Blood pressure variability and therapeutic implications in hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2019;26:353–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Del Giorno R, Balestra L, Heiniger PS, Gabutti L. Blood pressure variability with different measurement methods: reliability and predictors. A proof of concept cross sectional study in elderly hypertensive hospitalized patients. Medicine. 2019;98:e16347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stevens SL, Wood S, Koshiaris C, Law K, Glasziou P, Stevens RJ, et al. Blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;354:i4098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Juhanoja EP, Niiranen TJ, Johansson JK, Puukka PJ, Jula AM. Agreement between ambulatory, home, and office blood pressure variability. J Hypertens. 2016;34:61–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Asmar R, Bilo G, de la Sierra A, Head G, et al. Blood pressure monitoring: theory and practice. European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability Teaching Course Proceedings. Blood Press Monit. 2018;23:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stergiou GS, Kollias A, Ntineri A. Assessment of drug effects on blood pressure variability: which method and which index? J Hypertens. 2014;32:1197–1200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Abellan-Huerta J, Prieto-Valiente L, Montoro-Garcia S, Abellan-Aleman J, Soria-Arcos F. Correlation of blood pressure variability as measured by clinic, self-measurement at home, and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Am J Hypertens. 2018;31:305–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. STRIDE BP Validated blood pressure monitors. https://www.stridebp.org/bp-monitors. Accessed 3 Mar 2021.

  13. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, O’Brien E, Dobson JE, Dahlof B, et al. Effects of beta blockers and calcium-channel blockers on within-individual variability in blood pressure and risk of stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:469–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bilo G, Giglio A, Styczkiewicz K, Caldara G, Maronati A, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, et al. A new method for assessing 24-h blood pressure variability after excluding the contribution of nocturnal blood pressure fall. J Hypertens. 2007;25:2058–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mancia G, Grassi G. Mechanisms and clinical implications of blood pressure variability. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2000;35:S15–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Grassi G, Bombelli M, Seravalle G, Dell’Oro R, Quarti-Trevano F. Diurnal blood pressure variation and sympathetic activity. Hypertens Res. 2010;33:381–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stergiou GS, Nasothimiou EG. Home monitoring is the optimal method for assessing blood pressure variability. Hypertens Res. 2011;34:1246–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sogunuru GP, Kario K, Shin J, Chen CH, Buranakitjaroen P, Chia YC, et al. Morning surge in blood pressure and blood pressure variability in Asia: evidence and statement from the HOPE Asia Network. J Clin Hypertens. 2019;21:324–34.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ghazi L, Pajewski NM, Rifkin DE, Bates JT, Chang TI, Cushman WC, et al. Effect of intensive and standard clinic-based hypertension management on the concordance between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and blood pressure variability in SPRINT. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e011706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Imai Y, Ohkubo T, Tsuji I, Hozawa A, Nagai K, Kikuya M, et al. Relationships among blood pressures obtained using different measurement methods in the general population of Ohasama, Japan. Hypertens Res. 1999;22:261–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wei FF, Li Y, Zhang L, Xu TY, Ding FH, Wang JG, et al. Beat-to-beat, reading-to-reading, and day-to-day blood pressure variability in relation to organ damage in untreated Chinese. Hypertension. 2014;63:790–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Muntner P, Shimbo D, Diaz KM, Newman J, Sloan RP, Schwartz JE. Low correlation between visit-to-visit variability and 24-h variability of blood pressure. Hypertens Res. 2013;36:940–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Parati G, Omboni S, Bilo G. Why is out-of-office blood pressure measurement needed? Hypertension. 2009;54:181–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ogedegbe G, Schoenthaler A. A systematic review of the effects of home blood pressure monitoring on medication adherence. J Clin Hypertens. 2006;8:174–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ash GI, Walker TJ, Olson KM, Stratton JH, Gomez AL, Kraemer WJ, et al. Reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure changes from the initial values on two different days. Clinics. 2013;68:1509–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Imai Y, Aihara A, Ohkubo T, Nagai K, Tsuji I, Minami N, et al. Factors that affect blood pressure variability. A community-based study in Ohasama, Japan. Am J Hypertens. 1997;10:1281–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Abramson JL, Lewis C, Murrah NV. Body mass index, leptin, and ambulatory blood pressure variability in healthy adults. Atherosclerosis. 2011;214:456–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stergiou GS, Ntineri A, Kollias A, Ohkubo T, Imai Y, Parati G. Blood pressure variability assessed by home measurements: a systematic review. Hypertens Res. 2014;37:565–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Parati G, Ochoa JE, Lombardi C, Bilo G. Blood pressure variability: assessment, predictive value, and potential as a therapeutic target. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2015;17:537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Roush GC, Fagard RH, Salles GF, Pierdomenico SD, Reboldi G, Verdecchia P, et al. Prognostic impact of sex-ambulatory blood pressure interactions in 10 cohorts of 17 312 patients diagnosed with hypertension: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2015;33:212–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kato T, Kikuya M, Ohkubo T, Satoh M, Hara A, Obara T, et al. Factors associated with day-by-day variability of self-measured blood pressure at home: the Ohasama study. Am J Hypertens. 2010;23:980–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sun Z. Aging, arterial stiffness, and hypertension. Hypertension 2015;65:252–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Morano A, Ravera A, Agosta L, Sappa M, Falcone Y, Fonte G, et al. Extent of, and variables associated with, blood pressure variability among older subjects. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018;30:1327–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Parati G, Stergiou GS, Dolan E, Bilo G. Blood pressure variability: clinical relevance and application. J Hypertens. 2018;20:1133–7.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kollias A, Stergiou GS, Kyriakoulis KG, Bilo G, Parati G. Treating visit-to-visit blood pressure variability to improve prognosis: is amlodipine the drug of choice? Hypertension. 2017;70:862–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, Asmar R, Beilin L, Bilo G, et al. European Society of Hypertension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens. 2013;31:1731–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hypertension Center STRIDE-7, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Third Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, Athens, Greece

    Nadia Boubouchairopoulou, Angeliki Ntineri, Anastasios Kollias, Antonios Destounis & George S. Stergiou

Authors
  1. Nadia Boubouchairopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angeliki Ntineri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anastasios Kollias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonios Destounis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. George S. Stergiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George S. Stergiou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

GSS has received consultation and lecture fees from Omron and consultation fees and research grants from Microlife. The other authors have nothing to declare.

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

Boubouchairopoulou, N., Ntineri, A., Kollias, A. et al. Blood pressure variability assessed by office, home, and ambulatory measurements: comparison, agreement, and determinants. Hypertens Res 44, 1617–1624 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-021-00736-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-021-00736-9

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links