The measurement (M) of blood pressure (BP) in children may be challenging, and the ideal approach, free of critical issues (such as the interference due to the white coat effect or to the high variability), has yet to be identified. Herein, we compare BP as measured with multiple office BP monitoring (mOBPM) with the standard approach as suggested by guidelines. A cohort of healthy children underwent two mOBPMs 1 year apart. Mean systolic and diastolic values obtained by mOBPM were compared with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th measurements (repeated measures ANOVA). mOBPMs with a coefficient of variation (CV) > 15% were excluded. The number of children with BP > 90th centile was determined based on (a) each of the initial three readings, (b) the mean of the 2nd and 3rd Ms, (c) the 4th M, (d) the mOBPM at baseline, and (e) 1 year apart. Out of 164 enrolled children, 13 (7.9%) were excluded because of a CV > 15%. The analysis on the remaining 151 children showed that the first three Ms provided a significantly higher BP than the mOBPM. The 4th M was the first one to be aligned with the results of the mOBPM. Based on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ms, a BP > 90th centile was observed in 29, 20, 21, and 16 children, respectively. The mean of the 2nd and 3rd Ms identified 12 children with high BP, while the mOBPM revealed elevated BP in only 6 children and this finding was confirmed only in 3 of them 1 year later. Conclusion: The first three readings systematically overestimate BP, while the 4th one better aligns with the mOBPM. If the 4th reading is abnormal, the complete mOBPM will likely offer a more reliable BP assessment.<Table Float="No" ID="Taba"> <tgroup cols="2"> <colspec align="left" colname="c1" colnum="1" /> <colspec align="left" colname="c2" colnum="2" /> <tbody> <row> <entry nameend="c2" namest="c1"> What is Known: • Blood pressure measurement may be challanging and initial readings systematically overestimate real values. </entry> </row> <row> <entry nameend="c2" namest="c1"> What is New: • The 4th blood pressure reading better aligns with the mean of 10 measurements. In daily clinical practice, if the 4th reading is abnormal, the complete mOBPM (www.mobpm.com) will likely offer a more reliable BP assessment. </entry> </row> </tbody> </tgroup> </Table>

Multiple office blood pressure monitoring for the diagnosis of hypertension in children

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2025年2月27日

查看全文

Letizia Dato,
Maria Cristina Mancuso,
Thomas Ria,
Laura Viola,
Patrizia Salice,
Matteo Vidali,
Daniele Rossetti,
Giacomo Tamburini,
Teresa Nittoli,
Chiara Tamburello,
Teodora Munteanu,
Chiara Orsenigo,
Loredana Simionato,
Andrea Gualtieri,
Elena Sacchini,
Gianluigi Ardissino

摘要

The measurement (M) of blood pressure (BP) in children may be challenging, and the ideal approach, free of critical issues (such as the interference due to the white coat effect or to the high variability), has yet to be identified. Herein, we compare BP as measured with multiple office BP monitoring (mOBPM) with the standard approach as suggested by guidelines. A cohort of healthy children underwent two mOBPMs 1 year apart. Mean systolic and diastolic values obtained by mOBPM were compared with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th measurements (repeated measures ANOVA). mOBPMs with a coefficient of variation (CV) > 15% were excluded. The number of children with BP > 90th centile was determined based on (a) each of the initial three readings, (b) the mean of the 2nd and 3rd Ms, (c) the 4th M, (d) the mOBPM at baseline, and (e) 1 year apart. Out of 164 enrolled children, 13 (7.9%) were excluded because of a CV > 15%. The analysis on the remaining 151 children showed that the first three Ms provided a significantly higher BP than the mOBPM. The 4th M was the first one to be aligned with the results of the mOBPM. Based on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ms, a BP > 90th centile was observed in 29, 20, 21, and 16 children, respectively. The mean of the 2nd and 3rd Ms identified 12 children with high BP, while the mOBPM revealed elevated BP in only 6 children and this finding was confirmed only in 3 of them 1 year later.

Conclusion: The first three readings systematically overestimate BP, while the 4th one better aligns with the mOBPM. If the 4th reading is abnormal, the complete mOBPM will likely offer a more reliable BP assessment.

What is Known:

• Blood pressure measurement may be challanging and initial readings systematically overestimate real values.

What is New:

• The 4th blood pressure reading better aligns with the mean of 10 measurements. In daily clinical practice, if the 4th reading is abnormal, the complete mOBPM (www.mobpm.com) will likely offer a more reliable BP assessment.