Theory of channel simulation and bounds for private communication

We review recent results on the simulation of quantum channels, the reduction of adaptive protocols (teleportation stretching), and the derivation of converse bounds for quantum and private communication, as established in PLOB [Pirandola, Laurenza, Ottaviani, Banchi, arXiv:1510.08863]. We start by introducing a general weak converse bound for private communication based on the relative entropy of entanglement. We discuss how combining this bound with channel simulation and teleportation stretching, PLOB established the two-way quantum and private capacities of several fundamental channels, including the bosonic lossy channel. We then provide a rigorous proof of the strong converse property of these bounds by adopting a correct use of the Braunstein-Kimble teleportation protocol for the simulation of bosonic Gaussian channels. This analysis provides a full justification of claims presented in the follow-up paper WTB [Wilde, Tomamichel, Berta, arXiv:1602.08898] whose upper bounds for Gaussian channels would be otherwise infinitely large. Besides clarifying contributions in the area of channel simulation and protocol reduction, we also present some generalizations of the tools to other entanglement measures and novel results on the maximum excess noise which is tolerable in quantum key distribution

Automated office blood pressure measurements in primary care are misleading in more than one third of treated hypertensives: The VALENTINE-Greece Home Blood Pressure Monitoring study

Abstract Background This study assessed the diagnostic reliability of automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurements in treated hypertensive patients in primary care by evaluating the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) phenomena. Methods Primary care physicians, nationwide in Greece, assessed consecutive hypertensive patients on stable treatment using OBP (1 visit, triplicate measurements) and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements (7 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements). All measurements were performed using validated automated devices with bluetooth capacity (Omron M7 Intelli-IT). Uncontrolled OBP was defined as ≥140/90 mmHg, and uncontrolled HBP was defined as ≥135/85 mmHg. Results A total of 790 patients recruited by 135 doctors were analyzed (age: 64.5 ± 14.4 years, diabetics: 21.4%, smokers: 20.6%, and average number of antihypertensive drugs: 1.6 ± 0.8). OBP (137.5 ± 9.4/84.3 ± 7.7 mmHg, systolic/diastolic) was higher than HBP (130.6 ± 11.2/79.9 ± 8 mmHg; difference 6.9 ± 11.6/4.4 ± 7.6 mmHg, p Conclusions In primary care, automated OBP measurements are misleading in approximately 40% of treated hypertensive patients. HBP monitoring is mandatory to avoid overtreatment of subjects with WCH phenomenon and prevent undertreatment and subsequent excess cardiovascular disease in MUCH

Automated office blood pressure measurements in primary care are misleading in more than one third of treated hypertensives: The VALENTINE-Greece Home Blood Pressure Monitoring study

Background: This study assessed the diagnostic reliability of automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurements in treated hypertensive patients in primary care by evaluating the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) phenomena. Methods: Primary care physicians, nationwide in Greece, assessed consecutive hypertensive patients on stable treatment using OBP (1 visit, triplicate measurements) and home blood pressure (HBP) measurements (7 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements). All measurements were performed using validated automated devices with bluetooth capacity (Omron M7 Intelli-IT). Uncontrolled OBP was defined as ≥140/90 mmHg, and uncontrolled HBP was defined as ≥135/85 mmHg. Results: A total of 790 patients recruited by 135 doctors were analyzed (age: 64.5 ± 14.4 years, diabetics: 21.4%, smokers: 20.6%, and average number of antihypertensive drugs: 1.6 ± 0.8). OBP (137.5 ± 9.4/84.3 ± 7.7 mmHg, systolic/diastolic) was higher than HBP (130.6 ± 11.2/79.9 ± 8 mmHg; difference 6.9 ± 11.6/4.4 ± 7.6 mmHg, p < 0.001). WCH phenomenon (high OBP with low HBP) was observed in 22.7% of the patients, MUCH (low OBP with high HBP) in 15.8%, uncontrolled hypertension (high OBP with high HBP) in 29.9%, and controlled hypertension (low OBP with low HBP) in 31.6%. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, WCH was determined by stage-1 systolic hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 8.6, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 5.7, 13.1) and female gender (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1, 2.4), whereas MUCH was determined by high-normal systolic OBP (OR 6.2, 95% CI 3.8, 10.1) and male gender (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2, 3.1). Conclusions: In primary care, automated OBP measurements are misleading in approximately 40% of treated hypertensive patients. HBP monitoring is mandatory to avoid overtreatment of subjects with WCH phenomenon and prevent undertreatment and subsequent excess cardiovascular disease in MUCH. © 2019 Hellenic Society of Cardiolog