Unattended versus two attended, ambulatory and central blood pressure measurements in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes

Objective: To compare unattended blood pressure (BP) with two attended BP, with 24-h ambulatory (ABPM) and central BP measurements in hypertensive patients with (DMs) and without diabetes (HTs). Methods: In the same hypertension clinic we evaluate 129 consecutive HTs (56% female, 59 + 16 yrs) and 91 DMs (62% female, 64 + 9 yrs) who were referred for 24-h ABPM. During 48 hours they underwent a first attended BP (5 minutes resting, 3 recordings 2 minutes apart), (AT1), an unattended BP (UnAT), 3 measurements 2 minutes apart with a pre-programmed oscillometric Omron M10- IT, a second attended BP (AT2) similar to AT1, a 24-h ABPM and an evaluation of central BP (C) from the aortic wave form (SpygmoCor). Results: BP (mm Hg) and differences (Δ) from UnAT = 135/82 ± 17/10 were 1AT = +13.8/3.9 ± 10.3/5.6, AT2 = +7.3/2.9 ± 7.4/4.9, 24-h = −1.3/−1.7 ± 7.5/7.5 and C = −2.4/1.2 ± 10.3/9.1, all p < .01 vs UnAT. Limits of agreement (2 SDs in Bland-Altman plots) were between AT1 and UnAT systolic BP, +34.2 to −6.8 mm Hg and between AT2 and UnAT BP were +21.7 to −7.0 mm Hg. Unattended systolic BP values were similar to that of 24-h in HTs and to that of daytime in DMs. Intraclass correlation coefficients of systolic BP and diastolic BP between UnAT and AT1 and between UnAT and AT2 were within the range 0.78 to 0.83, all p < .01. Conclusions: In HTs with and without DM the unattended BP significantly underestimates attended BP being more close to ambulatory BP values. These differences should be taken into account since targets based on these BP measurements are not equivalent

Comparison of Blood Pressure Variability between 24 h Ambulatory Monitoring and Office Blood Pressure in Diabetics and Nondiabetic Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background. Evidence regarding blood pressure (BP) variability (BPV) and its independent association with adverse outcomes has grown. Diabetic patients might have increased BPV, but there is still an evidence gap regarding relation between BPV and type 2 diabetes beyond mean values of BP. Objective. To examine the relationship between 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM, short-term variability) and visit-to-visit in-office BPV (OBP, long-term variability), in diabetics (D) and nondiabetics (ND), and to explore BPV relation with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and pulse wave velocity (PWV) as indicators of target organ lesion. Materials and Methods. We conducted a single-center cross-sectional study in an outpatient BP unit, including adult patients consecutively admitted from 1999 to 2019. Multivariate was performed to compare BPV between D and ND adjusted for clinical variables. Pearson’s correlation was performed to evaluate relation of BPV with eGFR and PWV. Results. A total of 1123 patients with ABPM and OBP measurements were included. Values of eGFR and PWV were worse in D than in ND. Measurements of OBPV did not differ between groups. Of ABPM BPV, the coefficient of variation and standard deviation for daytime systolic BP were higher in D compared to ND, but only in ND did BPV correlated with both eGFR and PWV. Conclusion. We found that diabetes is associated with higher variability of daytime BP than nondiabetics along with worse damage of vascular and renal function. However, in contrast to nondiabetics, in diabetics eGFR and PWV may not be dependent on BP variability, suggesting that other mechanisms might explain more rigorously the greater damage of target organ lesion markers