A cuffless blood pressure (BP) device (TestBP) using pulse transit time is in clinical use, but leads to higher BP values compared to a cuff-based 24 h-BP reference device (RefBP). We evaluated the ...impact of a recent software update on BP results and TestBP's ability to differentiate between normo- and hypertension. 71 individuals had TestBP (Somnotouch-NIBP) and RefBP measurements simultaneously performed on either arm. TestBP results with software version V1.5 were compared to V1.4 and RefBP. Mean 24 h (± SD) BP for the RefBP, TestBP-V1.4 and TestBP-V1.5 were systolic 134.0 (± 17.3), 140.8 (± 20) and 139.1 (± 20) mmHg, and diastolic 79.3 (± 11.7), 85.8 (± 14.1) and 83.5 (± 13.0) mmHg, respectively (p-values < 0.001). TestBP-V1.5 area under the curve (95% confidence interval) versus RefBP for hypertension detection was 0.92 (0.86; 0.99), 0.94 (0.88; 0.99) and 0.77 (0.66; 0.88) for systolic and 0.92 (0.86; 0.99), 0.92 (0.85; 0.99) and 0.84 (0.74; 0.94) for diastolic 24 h, awake and asleep BP respectively. TestBP-V1.5 detected elevated systolic/diastolic mean 24 h-BP with a 95%/90% sensitivity and 65%/70% specificity. Highest Youden's Index was systolic 133 (sensitivity 95%/specificity 80%) and diastolic 87 mmHg (sensitivity 81%/specificity 98%). The update improved the agreement to RefBP. TestBP was excellent for detecting 24 h and awake hypertensive BP values but not for asleep BP values.
Blood pressure measurement (BPM) is one of the most often performed procedures in clinical practice, but especially office BPM is prone to errors. Unattended automated office BPM (AOBPM) is somewhat ...standardised and observer-independent, but time and space consuming. We aimed to assess whether an AOBPM protocol can be abbreviated without losing accuracy.
In our retrospective single centre study, we used all AOBPM (AOBPM protocol of the SPRINT study), collected over 14 months. Three sequential BPM (after 5 minutes of rest, spaced 2 minutes) were automatically recorded with the patient alone in a quiet room resulting in three systolic and diastolic values. We compared the mean of all three (RefProt) with the mean of the first two (ShortProtA) and the single first BPM (ShortProtB).
We analysed 413 AOBPM sets from 210 patients. Mean age was 52±16 years. Mean values for RefProt were 128.3/81.3 mmHg, for ShortProtA 128.4/81.4 mmHg, for ShortProtB 128.8/81.4 mmHg. Mean difference and limits of agreement for RefProt vs. ShortProtA and ShortProtB were -0.1±4.2/-0.1±2.8 mmHg and -0.5±8.1/-0.1±5.3 mmHg, respectively. With ShortProtA, 83% of systolic and 92% of diastolic measurements were within 2 mmHg from RefProt (67/82% for ShortProtB). ShortProtA or ShortProtB led to no significant hypertensive reclassifications in comparison to RefProt (p-values 0.774/1.000/1.000/0.556).
Based on our results differences between the RefProt and ShortProtA are minimal and within acceptable limits of agreement. Therefore, the automated procedure may be shorted from 3 to 2 measurements, but a single measurement is insufficient.
Blood pressure monitoring (BPM) devices have to be validated according to strict international validation protocols. Each protocol requests a specific number of participants to be included. All ...protocols use vast amounts of resources, as three people have to be present for every measurement, making trials costly, especially when the manufacturer has no intention to execute a validation study, reflected in the low share of validated in the commercially available BPM devices. The aim of our study was to develop criteria, which could detect low accuracy devices that could not pass a validation protocol early in the course of the validation process. The 2010 European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH‐IP) and the Universal Standard for Validation of BPM devices (AAMI/ESH/ISO) were scrutinized for criteria which can be used for preclusion of passing. Based on this, we developed a fail model. We found that a BPM device cannot pass the ESH‐IP protocol, if there are ≥27, 13, or 4 single measurements differing more than 5, 10, or 15 mmHg, respectively, from the reference. For the AAMI/ESH/ISO protocol, we developed a model, which calculates best‐case standard deviations (SDs) to detect SDs which would prevent the passing of the protocol before its completion, making a stepwise validation process possible. In conclusion, we found that our model is able to predict failure of low‐accuracy BPM devices early during a validation protocol if used in a stepwise‐approach. This can be useful to keep costs of validation studies low and to enable investigator‐initiated trials.
Objectives
Recently, ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH guidelines defined different office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) procedures and ranges. We aimed to describe the effect of the different methods to ...calculate OBPM on BP classification.
Methods and results
Four standardised OBPM were performed in 802 patients within a single visit. BP values were calculated (EUR-/US-BPM) and categorised (EUR-/US-Ranges) according to ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH guidelines. Comparing the BPM procedures, the mean absolute difference of systolic and diastolic BP was 4 (SD ± 5) and 3 (SD ± 3) and a difference ≥ 5 mmHg was found in 35% and 16%, respectively. There was an increase of grade 1/2 arterial hypertension of 87% and 120% comparing BP values categorised according to US-Ranges with EUR-Ranges after applying EUR- or US-BPM to all (
p
< 0.0001), of 25% and 6% comparing BP values calculated according to US-BPM with EUR-BPM applying EUR- or US-Ranges to all (
p
= 0.006 and
p
= 0.17), and of 134% comparing US-Ranges/US-BPM with EUR-Ranges/EUR-BPM (
p
< 0.0001), respectively. Overall, 16% were reclassified to higher categories when applying US-BPM, and 42–45% of patients classified as “high normal” applying EUR-BPM procedures were reclassified when applying US-BPM procedure, 76–77% of them to “hypertensive” categories.
Conclusion
Besides the effect of the redefinition of BP categories by ACC/AHA, the calculation method of US-BPM compared to EUR-BPM leads to a further relevant increase of patients classified as “hypertensive”. In addition to the definition of uniform outcome-oriented target BP values, there is an urgent need for a universal definition of an OBPM procedure as prerequisite for proper BP classification and patient management.
Arterial hypertension (AHT) is the leading preventable cause of death worldwide. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is one of the most important prognostic markers in hypertension and a predictor for ...mortality. The goals of this study were to examine the prevalence of LVH detected by echocardiography in patients with AHT and to describe patients with severe LVH.
This is a retrospective monocentric study including patients treated at a tertiary hypertension clinic. Echocardiographic data were taken from written reports from our hospital's echocardiography laboratories. We compared patients with severe LVH (septum thickness ≥ 15 mm) with patients with normal left ventricular (LV) geometry and with patients with concentric or eccentric hypertrophy regarding age, gender, comorbidities, medication, duration of hypertension, blood pressure (BP) and ECG changes at time of echocardiography.
Twenty-nine patients (7.3%) out of four hundred patients showed severe LVH and one hundred and eighty-nine (47.3%) a normal geometry. In comparison to patients with normal geometry, patients with severe LVH were more likely to be male, older, and with more uncontrolled BP, especially regarding asleep values, multi-drug antihypertensive treatment and comorbidities. In comparison to patients with concentric or eccentric hypertrophy, patients with severe LVH had a significantly higher diastolic BP in the 24 h mean, awake and asleep values. A positive Sokolow-Lyon index did not predict LVH. However, patients with severe LVH were more likely to have T-wave-inversions V4-V6 in at least one lead.
More than half of the patients with AHT have an abnormal geometry in our study (52.5%) and 7.3% a severe LVH. Patients with severe LVH have more often an uncontrolled AHT than patients with a normal LV geometry, despite more antihypertensive treatment. The Sokolow-Lyon index seems to be insufficient to detect LVH.
Myeloperoxidase (MPO) is a biomarker of inflammation and oxidative stress produced by neutrophils, monocytes, and endothelial cells. Concentrations of MPO predict mortality in patients with chronic ...heart failure. This study sought to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value of MPO in patients with acute heart failure (AHF).
We prospectively enrolled 667 patients presenting to the emergency department with dyspnea and observed them for 1 year. MPO and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) were measured at presentation. Two independent cardiologists adjudicated final discharge diagnoses.
MPO concentrations were similar in patients with AHF (n = 377, median 139 pmol/L) and patients with noncardiac causes of dyspnea (n = 290, median 150 pmol/L, P = 0.26). The diagnostic accuracy of MPO for AHF was limited area under the ROC curve (AUC) 0.53 and inferior to that of BNP (AUC 0.95, P < 0.001). In patients with AHF, MPO concentrations above the lowest tertile (MPO >99 pmol/L) were associated with significantly increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 1.58, P = 0.02). The combination of MPO (< or = 99 vs >99 pmol/L) and BNP (median of < or = 847 vs >847 ng/L) improved the prediction of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 2.80 for both variables increased vs both low, P < 0.001). After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors in multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, increases in MPO contributed significantly toward the prediction of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 1.51, P = 0.045).
MPO is an independent predictor of 1-year mortality in AHF, is additive to BNP, and could be helpful in identifying patients with a favorable prognosis despite increased BNP concentrations.
We aimed to establish the prevalence and effect of worsening renal function (WRF) on survival among patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Furthermore, we sought to establish a risk score ...for the prediction of WRF and externally validate the previously established Forman risk score. A total of 657 consecutive patients with acute decompensated heart failure presenting to the emergency department and undergoing serial creatinine measurements were enrolled. The potential of the clinical parameters at admission to predict WRF was assessed as the primary end point. The secondary end point was all-cause mortality at 360 days. Of the 657 patients, 136 (21%) developed WRF, and 220 patients had died during the first year. WRF was more common in the nonsurvivors (30% vs 41%, p = 0.03). Multivariate regression analysis found WRF to independently predict mortality (hazard ratio 1.92, p <0.01). In a single parameter model, previously diagnosed chronic kidney disease was the only independent predictor of WRF and achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.60. After the inclusion of the blood gas analysis parameters into the model history of chronic kidney disease (hazard ratio 2.13, p = 0.03), outpatient diuretics (hazard ratio 5.75, p <0.01), and bicarbonate (hazard ratio 0.91, p <0.01) were all predictive of WRF. A risk score was developed using these predictors. On receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the Forman and Basel prediction rules achieved an area under the curve of 0.65 and 0.71, respectively. In conclusion, WRF was common in patients with acute decompensated heart failure and was linked to significantly worse outcomes. However, the clinical parameters failed to adequately predict its occurrence, making a tailored therapy approach impossible.
According to the European Hypertension Guidelines regarding office blood pressure measurements (OBPMs), the mean between second/third or third/fourth OBPM should be taken if the first two readings ...differ by ≤10 or >10 mmHg, respectively. Our aim was to explore the value of the fourth OBPM and determine whether a simplified OBPM procedure is feasible without loss of quality. In this cross‐sectional study, four standard OBPMs were taken. The mean of the second/third OBPM (S2S3/D2D3) and third/fourth OBPM (S3S4/D3D4) for systolic/diastolic values was calculated. Correlation, agreement, and differences regarding BP classification were explored for the entire cohort and subsets with a difference between the first/second OBPM (S1S2/D1D2) ≤10 and >10 mmHg. Overall (n = 802) and for the subsets with an S1S2 (n = 596) and D1D2 (n = 742) difference ≤10 mmHg, S3S4/D3D4 was in median 0.5 mmHg lower than S2S3/D2D3, respectively (p < .0005 for all). In participants with an S1S2 (n = 206) and D1D2 (n = 60) difference >10 mmHg, S3S4/D3D4 differed numerically from S2S3/D2D3, respectively (p > .1 for all). Overall and for all subsets with an S1S2/D1D2 difference ≤10/>10 mmHg, less subjects were numerically classified as hypertensive with S3S4/D3D4 than with S2S3/D2D3 (p > .04), but BP reclassification occurred in both directions in 1.0%‐10.0%, depending on the cohort. In conclusion, the third/fourth OBPM results in lower BP values than the second/third measurement, regardless of the difference between first/second OBPM, whereby BP reclassifications occurred in both directions. Therefore, the cutoff of >10 versus ≤10mmHg difference between first/second OBPM to implement a fourth BPM harbors the risk of distorted results. We therefore recommend using the second/third BPM for standardized OBPM.
Trial registration: Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02552030).
Monitoring treatment efficacy and assessing outcome by serial measurements of natriuretic peptides in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients may help to improve outcome.
This was a ...prospective multi-center study of 171 consecutive patients (mean age 80 73-85 years) presenting to the emergency department with ADHF. Measurement of BNP and NT-proBNP was performed at presentation, 24 hours, 48 hours and at discharge. The primary endpoint was one-year all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were 30-days all-cause mortality and one-year heart failure (HF) readmission.
During one-year follow-up, a total of 60 (35%) patients died. BNP and NT-proBNP levels were higher in non-survivors at all time points (all P < 0.001). In survivors, treatment reduced BNP and NT-proBNP levels by more than 50% (P < 0.001), while in non-survivors treatment did not lower BNP and NT-proBNP levels. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the prediction of one-year mortality increased during the course of hospitalization for BNP (AUC presentation: 0.67; AUC 24 h: 0.77; AUC 48 h: 0.78; AUC discharge: 0.78) and NT-proBNP (AUC presentation: 0.67; AUC 24 h: 0.73; AUC 48 h: 0.75; AUC discharge: 0.77). In multivariate analysis, BNP at 24 h (1.02 1.01-1.04, P = 0.003), 48 h (1.04 1.02-1.06, P < 0.001) and discharge (1.02 1.01-1.03, P < 0.001) independently predicted one-year mortality, while only pre-discharge NT-proBNP was predictive (1.07 1.01-1.13, P = 0.016). Comparable results could be obtained for the secondary endpoint 30-days mortality but not for one-year HF readmissions.
BNP and NT-proBNP reliably predict one-year mortality in patients with ADHF. Prognostic accuracy of both biomarker increases during the course of hospitalization. In survivors BNP levels decline more rapidly than NT-proBNP levels and thus seem to allow earlier assessment of treatment efficacy. Ability to predict one-year HF readmission was poor for BNP and NT-proBNP.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00514384.
PDF
