Evidence-based proposal for the number of ambulatory readings required for assessing blood pressure level in research settings: an analysis of the IDACO database
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Evidence-based proposal for the number of ambulatory readings required for assessing blood pressure level in research settings : an analysis of the IDACO database. / International Database; on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators.
In: Blood Pressure, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2018, p. 341-350.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Evidence-based proposal for the number of ambulatory readings required for assessing blood pressure level in research settings
T2 - an analysis of the IDACO database
AU - Yang, Wen-Yi
AU - Thijs, Lutgarde
AU - Zhang, Zhen-Yu
AU - Asayama, Kei
AU - Boggia, José
AU - Hansen, Tine W
AU - Ohkubo, Takayoshi
AU - Jeppesen, Jørgen
AU - Stolarz-Skrzypek, Katarzyna
AU - Malyutina, Sofia
AU - Casiglia, Edoardo
AU - Nikitin, Yuri
AU - Li, Yan
AU - Wang, Ji-Guang
AU - Imai, Yutaka
AU - Kawecka-Jaszcz, Kalina
AU - O'Brien, Eoin
AU - Staessen, Jan A
AU - International Database; on Ambulatory blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO) Investigators
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - BACKGROUND: Guidelines on the required number of ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) readings focus on individual patients. Clinical researchers often face the dilemma of applying recommendations and discarding potentially valuable information or accepting fewer readings.METHODS: Starting from ABP recordings with ≥30/≥10 awake/asleep readings in 4277 participants enrolled in eight population studies in the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO), we randomly selected a certain number of readings (from 30 to 1 awake and 10 to 1 asleep readings) at a time over 1000 bootstraps at each step. We evaluated: (i) concordance of the ABP level; (ii) consistency of the cross-classification based on office blood pressure and ABP; and (iii) accuracy in predicting cardiovascular complications. For each criterion, we fitted a regression line joining data points relating outcome to the number of readings covering the ranges of 30-20/10-7 for awake/asleep readings.RESULTS: Reducing readings widened the SD of the systolic/diastolic differences between full (reference) and selected recordings from 1.7/1.2 (30 readings) to 14.3/10.3 mm Hg (single reading) during wakefulness, and from 1.9/1.4 to 10.3/7.7 mm Hg during sleep; lowered the κ statistic from 0.94 to 0.63, and decreased the hazard ratio associated with 10/5 mm Hg increments in systolic/diastolic ABP from 1.21/1.14 to 1.06/1.04 during wakefulness and from 1.26/1.17 to 1.14/1.08 during sleep. The first data points falling off these regression lines during wakefulness/sleep corresponded to 8/3 and 8/4 readings for criteria (i) and (iii) and to 5 awake readings for criterion (ii).CONCLUSIONS: 24-h ambulatory recordings with ≥8/≥4 awake/asleep readings yielded ABP levels similar to recordings including the guideline-recommended ≥20/≥7 readings. These criteria save valuable data in a research setting, but are not applicable to clinical practice.
AB - BACKGROUND: Guidelines on the required number of ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) readings focus on individual patients. Clinical researchers often face the dilemma of applying recommendations and discarding potentially valuable information or accepting fewer readings.METHODS: Starting from ABP recordings with ≥30/≥10 awake/asleep readings in 4277 participants enrolled in eight population studies in the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes (IDACO), we randomly selected a certain number of readings (from 30 to 1 awake and 10 to 1 asleep readings) at a time over 1000 bootstraps at each step. We evaluated: (i) concordance of the ABP level; (ii) consistency of the cross-classification based on office blood pressure and ABP; and (iii) accuracy in predicting cardiovascular complications. For each criterion, we fitted a regression line joining data points relating outcome to the number of readings covering the ranges of 30-20/10-7 for awake/asleep readings.RESULTS: Reducing readings widened the SD of the systolic/diastolic differences between full (reference) and selected recordings from 1.7/1.2 (30 readings) to 14.3/10.3 mm Hg (single reading) during wakefulness, and from 1.9/1.4 to 10.3/7.7 mm Hg during sleep; lowered the κ statistic from 0.94 to 0.63, and decreased the hazard ratio associated with 10/5 mm Hg increments in systolic/diastolic ABP from 1.21/1.14 to 1.06/1.04 during wakefulness and from 1.26/1.17 to 1.14/1.08 during sleep. The first data points falling off these regression lines during wakefulness/sleep corresponded to 8/3 and 8/4 readings for criteria (i) and (iii) and to 5 awake readings for criterion (ii).CONCLUSIONS: 24-h ambulatory recordings with ≥8/≥4 awake/asleep readings yielded ABP levels similar to recordings including the guideline-recommended ≥20/≥7 readings. These criteria save valuable data in a research setting, but are not applicable to clinical practice.
KW - Adult
KW - Aged
KW - Blood Pressure
KW - Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory
KW - Databases, Factual
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Practice Guidelines as Topic
KW - Sleep
KW - Wakefulness
U2 - 10.1080/08037051.2018.1476057
DO - 10.1080/08037051.2018.1476057
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 29909698
VL - 27
SP - 341
EP - 350
JO - Blood Pressure
JF - Blood Pressure
SN - 0803-7051
IS - 6
ER -
ID: 214134413