We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
A cross-over evaluation of different methods and devices to measure blood pressure in type 1 diabetic patients with nephropathy.
Blood Pressure Monitoring 2000 June
BACKGROUND: In type 1 diabetic patients with nephropathy, tight blood pressure control has been shown to prevent the progression of the disease. Up until now, self-monitoring, ambulatory and office blood pressure values have not been compared in these patients. Thus, we have evaluated blood pressure values obtained in the office by a physician and at home by self-monitoring with those measured under ambulatory conditions in these patients. Additionally, for blood pressure self-monitoring, three different devices (the sphygmomanometer, upper-arm oscillometer and wrist oscillometer) were compared.
METHODS: Twenty-one treated hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients [age 45+/-9 years, duration of diabetes 33+/-12 years (mean+/-SD)] with overt diabetic nephropathy participated in this study. At both baseline and the end of the study, daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement was performed. Office blood pressure was measured at baseline. Additionally, all the patients measured their blood pressure over a 3-week period using each of the three different devices, in random order, for 1 week.
RESULTS: The mean office blood pressure values (135+/-21/85+/-12mmHg) were higher than both the ambulatory (131+/-23/80+/-12, P<0.05) and self-monitoring values (130+/-14/78+/-10; P<0.05 for systolic and P<0.02 for diastolic values). The difference between the ambulatory and self-monitoring values were not statistically significant. Diastolic blood pressure values measured with the oscillometric wrist device showed a trend towards higher values when compared to those measured with the sphygmomanometer and with the oscillometric upper-arm device (P=0.065 for diastolic values).
CONCLUSION: Office blood pressure measurements may over-estimate blood pressure in patients with type 1 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy. Because the oscillometric wrist device tends to over-estimate diastolic values, upper-arm devices should be preferred for blood pressure self-monitoring in these patients.
METHODS: Twenty-one treated hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients [age 45+/-9 years, duration of diabetes 33+/-12 years (mean+/-SD)] with overt diabetic nephropathy participated in this study. At both baseline and the end of the study, daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement was performed. Office blood pressure was measured at baseline. Additionally, all the patients measured their blood pressure over a 3-week period using each of the three different devices, in random order, for 1 week.
RESULTS: The mean office blood pressure values (135+/-21/85+/-12mmHg) were higher than both the ambulatory (131+/-23/80+/-12, P<0.05) and self-monitoring values (130+/-14/78+/-10; P<0.05 for systolic and P<0.02 for diastolic values). The difference between the ambulatory and self-monitoring values were not statistically significant. Diastolic blood pressure values measured with the oscillometric wrist device showed a trend towards higher values when compared to those measured with the sphygmomanometer and with the oscillometric upper-arm device (P=0.065 for diastolic values).
CONCLUSION: Office blood pressure measurements may over-estimate blood pressure in patients with type 1 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy. Because the oscillometric wrist device tends to over-estimate diastolic values, upper-arm devices should be preferred for blood pressure self-monitoring in these patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app