[Improved office blood pressure control by automatic delayed-reading oscillometric device].

Blood pressure (BP) control remains a central concern in hypertension management. While office BP measurements are standard, they may not fully capture a patient's BP status. Recent studies suggest that out-of-office BP monitoring provides additional insights. However, the accuracy of office BP readings in reflecting true BP control is still debated. Prior research has shown that office readings can be influenced by the white-coat effect. This gap motivated an investigation into how office BP measurements compare with more comprehensive monitoring. No prior work had resolved how often office readings overestimate or underestimate BP control. Understanding this relationship is essential for optimizing hypertension management. The study aimed to clarify the reliability of office BP measurements in a clinical setting. This approach could help refine guidelines for BP assessment and treatment decisions.

The study aimed to assess the accuracy of office BP measurements in determining BP control. It focused on whether automatic devices with delayed readings could reduce the white-coat effect. The motivation came from the need to improve diagnostic precision in hypertension. The researchers wanted to compare office BP results with ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) data. This comparison could reveal how often office readings misclassify BP status. The study also sought to identify demographic and clinical factors linked to uncontrolled hypertension. By analyzing both office and out-of-office BP data, the team aimed to provide clearer guidance for clinicians. The findings could help determine when office measurements are sufficient and when ABPM is necessary.

The study collected demographic and clinical data from 102 patients in November 2019. Office BP was measured using an automatic device with delayed readings. Systolic and diastolic BP were recorded during clinic visits. For some patients, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was also performed. The researchers categorized BP control based on office readings and ABPM results. Statistical analysis identified associations between patient characteristics and BP control. Age and diabetes status were among the variables examined. The study compared office BP readings with 24-hour BP data from ABPM to assess accuracy.

Seventy percent of patients had controlled BP based on office readings (<140/90 mmHg). The average systolic BP was 131 mmHg, and diastolic BP was 73 mmHg. Older age and diabetes were linked to uncontrolled hypertension. Among 33 patients with ABPM data, 30% were classified as true normotensive. Nine percent had white-coat hypertension, and 15% had sustained hypertension. Forty-five percent had masked hypertension, where office readings were normal but ABPM showed elevated BP. The automatic device reduced the white-coat effect compared to traditional methods. However, office readings did not accurately reflect BP outside the clinic setting.

The study found that office BP readings may overestimate control in some patients. Automatic devices with delayed readings reduced the white-coat effect. However, these devices did not fully capture BP status outside the clinic. ABPM remains essential for accurate hypertension classification. The researchers propose that office BP has educational and initial assessment value. They suggest that methodology must be optimized to define its role in practice. The findings highlight the importance of combining office and out-of-office measurements. This approach could lead to more precise hypertension management strategies.