Results of the SPRINT study have been disputed, based on the assumption that unattended BP measurements do not correlate with usual BP measurements. In this study, the authors investigated the correlation of unattended SPRINT-like measurements with other conventional measurements. All BP measurements were taken with the patient seated in a comfortable chair with the legs uncrossed and not speaking during the procedure. For the purpose of this study, sixty-five patients, mostly male (93%), were recruited from our hypertension clinic and all were on antihypertensive medication (av 3.0 ± 1.1). Patients were at high cardiovascular risk with high rates of comorbidities, av age 68 ± 12 years, 49% with diabetes, 34% with mild CKD (CKD 1-3, average eGFR 55.0 ± 13 mL/min/1.73 m2 ), and 20% with history of stable coronary artery disease. All BP measurements were similar with no statistically significant difference (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.621). Compared to unattended SPRINT BP values (139.77 ± 19.22/75.42 ± 11.72 mm Hg), the clinic BP measurements were numerically slightly higher but with a NS P value (P = 0.163). Similarly, unattended BP measurements were similar to values taken by the clinic physician. In a smaller cohort of 11 patients, the authors compared unobserved vs observed SPRINT-like BP measurements, and in 13 patients, the authors compared unobserved SPRINT-like BP measurements to average home BP measurements (Table 3). There were no significant differences between any of the subgroups (one-way ANOVA, P = 0.816 for systolic and P = 0.803 for diastolic). The authors conclude that unattended BP measurements taken (the SPRINT way) are similar to other conventional office blood pressure measurements.
Keywords: auscultatory BP; automated office blood pressure; conventional BP; unattended SPRINT BP.
©2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.