Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical decision-making in hypertension using an automated (BpTRU™) measurement device

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 17, pages 823–827 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

Mercury sphygmomanometers are being removed from clinical practice in the United States due to environmental concerns about mercury toxicity. Accurate blood pressure measurement is central to high-quality hypertension management. In this study of 106 patients, the BpTRUTM device was compared to nurse blood pressure measurements that complied with all the JNC VII/American Heart Association guidelines in evaluation of a random casual blood pressure. The intermethod difference in systolic blood pressure was +1.8±5.1 mmHg, and for diastolic blood pressure it was 4.8±5.1 mmHg (both P<0.001). For the primary study end point of clinical decision-making, there was 92% (97/106) agreement between the hypertension nurse specialist and the BpTRU™ (kappa 0.8280, 95% confidence interval, 0.721–0.9350). The oscillometric blood pressure measurement with the BpTRU™ is recommended as a replacement for poorly performed auscultatory blood pressure measurement in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. US Environmental Protection Agency. US Environmental Protection Agency Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume I: Executive Summary. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 1997, publication EPA-452/R-97-003.

  2. Bolger PM, Schwetz BA . Mercury and health. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1735–1736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Canzanello VJ, Jensen PL, Schwartz, GL . Are aneroid sphygmomanometers accurate in hospital and clinic settings. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 729–731.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Villegas I, Arias IC, Botero A, Escobar A . Evaluation of the technique used by health care workers for taking blood pressure. Hypertension 1995; 26: 1204–1206.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McKay DW et al. Clinical assessment of blood pressure. J Hypertens 1990; 4: 639–645.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Linfors EW et al. Spurious hypertension in the obese patient. Effect of sphygmomanometer cuff size on prevalence of hypertension. Arch Intern Med 1984; 144: 1482–1485.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cushman WC, Cooper KM, Horne RA, Meydrech EF . Effect of back support and stethoscope head position on seated blood pressure determinations. Am J Hypertens 1990; 3: 240–241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silverberg DS, Shemesh E, Iaina A . The unsupported arm: a cause of falsely raised blood pressure readings. BMJ 1977; 2: 1331.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Rose GA, Holland WW, Crowley EA . Lancet. 1964; 1: 296–300.

  10. Wingfield D et al. for the Syst-Eur Investigators. Terminal digit preference and single number preference in the Syst-Eur trial: influence of quality control. Blood Press Monit 2002; 7: 169–177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Veerman DP, Van Montfrans GA, Wieling W . Effects of cuff inflation on self-recorded blood pressure. Lancet. 1990; 335: 451–453.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gleichmann SI et al. Educating nurses in blood pressure measurement and hypertension control. J Hypertens 1989; 7 (Suppl 3): S99–S102.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. O'Brien E et al. Training and assessment of observers for blood pressure measurement in hypertension control. J Hum Hypertens 1991; 5: 7–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Grim CM, Grim CE . A curriculum for the training and certification of blood pressure measurement for health care workers. Can J Cardiol 1995; 11 (Suppl H): H38–H42.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chobanian AV et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention detection, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure for the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. JAMA 2003; 289: 2560–2572.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O'Brien E . State of the market for devices for blood pressure measurement. Blood Press Monit 2001; 6: 281–286.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hla KM, Vokaty KA, Feussner JR . Observer error in systolic blood pressure measurement in the elderly. A case for automated recorders. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146: 2373–2375.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mattu GS, Perry TL, Wright JM . Comparison of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BPM-100) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer. Blood Press Monit 2001; 6: 153–159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. O'Brien E et al. The British Hypertension Society protocol for the evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices. J Hypertens 1993; 11 (Suppl 2): S43–S62.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hansson L, Zanchetti A . The Hypertension Optimal Treatment Trial (HOT) study: 24-month data on blood pressure and tolerability. Blood Press 1997; 6: 313–317.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. O'Neill H, O'Brien E, Stanton A, Hedditch K . The suitability of an automated blood pressure measuring device, the Omron HEM-705CP, in a large multicenter study: the ASCOT study. J Hum Hypertens 2001; 15: S83–S85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Campo C et al. An approach to improve the diagnosis of isolated office hypertension. J Hypertens 2002; 20 (Suppl 4): S233.

    Google Scholar 

  23. VSM MedTech Manufacturers. Information on File. 2002.

  24. Bailey RH, Knaus VL, Bauer JH . Aneroid sphygmomanometers: an assessment of accuracy at a university hospital and clinics. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151: 1409–1412.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mion D, Pierin AMG . How accurate are sphygmomanometers? J Hum Hypertens 1998; 12: 245–248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ali S, Rouse A . Practice audits: reliability of sphygmomanometers and blood pressure recording bias. J Hum Hypertens 2002; 16: 359–361.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA

    J W Graves, C Nash, K Burger, K Bailey & S G Sheps

Authors
  1. J W Graves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C Nash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S G Sheps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J W Graves.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graves, J., Nash, C., Burger, K. et al. Clinical decision-making in hypertension using an automated (BpTRU™) measurement device. J Hum Hypertens 17, 823–827 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001626

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001626

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links