Accuracy of a New Wrist Cuff Oscillometric Blood Pressure Device: Comparisons with Intraarterial and Mercury Manometer Measurements

Accurate measurement of arterial blood pressure is of great importance for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. Because of the chronic nature of antihypertensive drug therapy, the involvement of the patient in blood pressure control is desirable. Such an involvement, however, is only feasible if simple, user-friendly, and precise blood pressure measurement devices are available. In this study we tested a new wrist cuff oscillometric blood pressure measurement device in 100 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Blood pressures were simultaneously taken intraarterially (axillary artery) and with a mercury manometer and stethoscope or noninvasive measurement device (OMRON R3). Intraarterial measurements were directly compared with two measurements taken in random order with either an arm cuff mercury manometer or the wrist cuff device. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure as assessed with the mercury manometer was higher, especially when compared with the intraarterial and the wrist cuff values, which were comparable. Correlations of blood pressure values with intraarterial measurement were 0.86 systolic and 0.75 diastolic (P < .01) for the wrist cuff and 0.84 systolic (P < .01) and 0.59 diastolic (P < .05) for the mercury manometer measurements. Reproducibility of both measurements was good for the wrist cuff device ([systolic/diastolic]: r = 0.94/0.92; P < .01) and the mercury manometer (r = 0.97/0.88; P < .01). Both methods overestimated high diastolic values, whereas only the wrist cuff underestimated high systolic values. Thus, the new oscillometric wrist cuff blood pressure measurement device measures arterial blood pressure with great accuracy and reproducibility. As compared with intraarterial values, the wrist cuff device overestimated high diastolic and underestimated high systolic blood pressure values. Blood pressure values as measured by the mercury manometer were higher than intraarterial values and those of the wrist cuff. Both noninvasive devices overestimated high diastolic value

Self‐limited HBV infection of the recipient does not reactivate after liver transplantation: Observations from a 30‐year liver transplant program

Background: A self-limited hepatitis B infection can reactivate in patients under immunosuppression or chemotherapy (reappearance of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) or HBV-DNA). Exact circumstances of HBV reactivation in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for end-stage liver diseases (ESLD) unrelated to HBV are unknown, and recommendations on HBV prophylaxis remain unclear. Patients and methods: Among 1273 liver transplants, 168 patients with a self-limited HBV hepatitis B infection prior to LT were identified from our prospective liver transplant database. Patients with underlying chronic HBV infection and recipients of an anti-HBc-positive liver were not included in the analysis. Demographic, laboratory, serological, and virological data were analyzed retrospectively. Appearance of HBsAg or HBV-DNA was defined as reactivation. Results: The median follow-up after LT was 12.0 years (0.6-30.7 years). The rate of HBV reactivation was 0% independent of antiviral prophylaxis (n = 7; 4.2%), the etiology of ESLD, hepatitis C treatment, or the anti-HBs concentration. The overall patient survival with a history of a self-limited HBV infection before LT did not significantly differ from the rest of the cohort. Conclusion: Antiviral treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues post-liver transplantation in order to prevent HBV reactivation in patients with a resolved self-limited hepatitis B infection prior to LT seems to be omittable since the main viral reservoir is removed by the hepatectomy. These findings may clarify the current uncertainty in the recommendations regarding the risk of HBV reactivation in patients with self-limited hepatitis B prior to LT

Efficacy of manidipine/delapril versus losartan/hydrochlorothiazide fixed combinations in patients with hypertension and diabetes

BACKGROUND: Hypertension markedly increases the already high risk for cardiovascular complications in patients with diabetes mellitus. Less than one in eight patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes have adequately controlled blood pressure. As a result, antihypertensive combinations are now widely used in management of hypertension associated with diabetes. METHODS: This double-blind study investigated efficacy of a new fixed dose combination of a calcium antagonist, manidipine 10 mg, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, delapril 30 mg, compared with a combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker, losartan 50 mg, and a diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Patients with hypertension (blood pressure > or = 130/80 mmHg) with controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c < or = 7.5%) were randomized to manidipine/delapril (n = 153) or losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (n = 161), administered once daily for 12 weeks. Patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitor evaluation at baseline and end of treatment. RESULTS: Mean decreases in 24-h systolic blood pressure were seen with both manidipine/delapril (-9.3 mmHg) and losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (-10.7 mmHg) combinations. The mean (95% confidence interval) treatment difference was -1.4 (-4.5/1.8) mmHg, demonstrating noninferiority of the manidipine/delapril combination. Reduction in 24-h diastolic blood pressure (-4.6 versus -4.5 mmHg) and daytime (systolic blood pressure -10.5 versus -11.1 mmHg) and night-time (systolic blood pressure -7.1 versus -9.3 mmHg) blood pressure were also not significantly different between treatments. Compliance and adverse events were comparable for both groups. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that the combination of manidipine and delapril is as effective as losartan and hydrochlorothiazide in treatment of hypertension in type 2 diabetes