Unattended office blood pressure (BP) measurement (UOBPM) has become an increasingly discussed method in the management of arterial hypertension. This approach involves measuring BP without the presence of a health care professional, typically in clinical settings but away from a direct influence of the clinical staff.1,2 It aims to minimize the “white coat” effect, where patients exhibit elevated BP levels in clinical settings due to anxiety or stress from interacting with medical personnel.
Recent guidelines have begun to acknowledge the utility of UOBPMs in diagnosing and managing hypertension. In fact, the guidelines issued by the Canadian Hypertension Society3 prefer this method of BP assessment over traditional clinic-based measurements. However, the 2023 European Society of Hypertension guidelines4 stress that, in contrast with standard office measurements, evidence on UOBPM ability to predict a reduction of outcomes by treatment is limited to a single SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) study.5 Furthermore, little is known on the value of unattended measurements in the accurate prediction of cardiovascular events, including morbidity and mortality, in the general population.6 Consequently, these guidelines suggest that UOBPMs can only complement traditional clinic measurements and other forms of BP monitoring, such as home or 24-hour ambulatory monitoring.
In the current issue of Polish Archives of Internal Medicine, Stopa et al7 compared the values of unattended and attended BP measurements in terms of their association with various forms of hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD), including left ventricular hypertrophy, left atrial enlargement, left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction, intima-media complex thickening, microalbuminuria, and abnormal pulse wave velocity. In agreement with previous studies,8,9 blood pressure readings during unattended measurements were significantly lower. However, this method did not prove to be superior in predicting any of the various types of HMOD. These findings expand the results of previous studies,10-12 which focused on individual types of HMOD at a time and never, in contrast with the current study, compared 2 methods of BP measurement in predicting the presence of microalbuminuria and systolic and diastolic dysfunction. Taken together, there is a growing body of evidence questioning the superiority of unattended vs attended measurements.
What is the future of UOBPMs? Table 1 outlines the key considerations in employing UOBPM within clinical or research settings, highlighting how it can improve measurement accuracy, while also noting potential drawbacks in patient management and infrastructure needs.
![](https://pamw.pl/sites/default/files/json_zip_files/uncompressed/16761/IMAGES/KP_WEB__TAB_TABLE01.png)
Aspect | Advantage | Disadvantage |
---|---|---|
Accuracy | Reduces the white coat effect, potentially providing a more accurate representation of true BP levels. | Requires proper setup and patient adherence to the protocol. |
Patient experience | Less stressful without a health care worker present. | Some patients may feel anxious or confused without guidance; some may fall asleep. |
Consistency | Standardized procedure can reduce variability associated with different measurement techniques. | Requires strict protocol adherence, which might be challenging in unsupervised settings. |
Comprehensive assessment | Focused solely on obtaining accurate BP measurements. | May miss other vital signs or symptoms requiring attention. |
Clinical efficiency | Frees up health care workers to perform other tasks, potentially increasing clinical efficiency. | Might require additional resources to manage and maintain measurement stations. |
UOBPMs aim to reduce the white coat effect, where patients exhibit elevated BP levels in clinical settings, but cannot fully replicate the natural, varied environments that a patient might experience daily. Home BP monitoring mitigates this issue more effectively by allowing for measurements in a genuinely relaxed state over many days or weeks, thus avoiding the spikes caused by anxiety associated with clinical settings.
Therefore, home BP measurement is likely to strengthen its position as the preferred method for managing arterial hypertension over both unattended and attended office BP measurements for several compelling reasons.13 By actively participating in their care, patients often show better adherence to treatment and lifestyle modifications. Modern home BP monitors are more user-friendly and accurate. Many devices now feature digital interfaces that can store measurements, track trends over time, and transfer data directly to health care providers.
Furthermore, development of wearable technologies may allow for continuous BP monitoring without the need for traditional cuff-based methods, providing real-time data with minimal user involvement.14,15 Integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms can provide further predictive insights into patient data, potentially identifying trends and risks earlier than the current approaches. Continuous data collection can lead to development of better predictive models for cardiovascular events and more tailored treatment plans. This level of detailed and ongoing monitoring is something that cannot be easily replicated with UOBPMs.
In summary, while UOBPMs are an improvement over traditional office visits, home BP measurement, especially with development and integration of cuffless monitoring technologies, offers unique benefits in terms of personalization, convenience, continuous monitoring, and potential for integration with health management tools. These advantages make it a preferred choice for the foreseeable future in managing arterial hypertension.
Krzysztof Narkiewicz, MD, PhD, Department of Hypertension and Diabetology, Medical University of Gdansk, ul. Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-214 Gdańsk, Poland, phone: +48 58 349 25 27, email: knark@gumed.edu.pl
April 30, 2024.
May 2, 2024.
May 28, 2024.
The opinions expressed by the author(s) are not necessarily those of the journal editors, Polish Society of Internal Medicine, or publisher.
None declared.
Narkiewicz K. Unattended blood pressure measurement: is it really superior to traditional clinic readings? Pol Arch Intern Med. 2024; 134: 16761. doi:10.20452/pamw.16761
- 1.
- Myers MG, Meglis G, Polemidiotis G. The impact of physician vs automated blood pressure readings on office-induced hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 1997; 11: 491-493.Crossref
- 2.
- Myers MG. A short history of automated office blood pressure - 15 years to SPRINT. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2016; 18: 721-724.Crossref
- 3.
- Rabi DM, McBrien KA, Sapir-Pichhadze R, et al. Hypertension Canada’s 2020 comprehensive guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. Can J Cardiol. 2020; 36: 596-624.
- 4.
- Mancia G, Kreutz R, Brunström M, et al. 2023 ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension: endorsed by the International Society of Hypertension (ISH) and the European Renal Association (ERA). J Hypertens. 2023; 41: 1874-2071.
- 5.
- Wright JT Jr, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373: 2103-2116.Crossref
- 6.
- Myers MG, Kaczorowski J, Paterson JM, et al. Thresholds for diagnosing hypertension based on automated office blood pressure measurements and cardiovascular risk. Hypertension. 2015; 66: 489-495.Crossref
- 7.
- Stopa M, Zięba K, Tofilska A, et al. Unattended automatic blood pressure measurements vs conventional office readings in predicting hypertension-mediated organ damage. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2024; 134: 16699.Crossref
- 8.
- Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J, Myers MG. Comparing automated office blood pressure readings with other methods of blood pressure measurement for identifying patients with possible hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179: 351-362.Crossref
- 9.
- Myers MG, Sierra A, Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J. Attended versus unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. J Hypertens. 2020; 38: 1407-1411.Crossref
- 10.
- Paini A, Aggiusti C, Bertacchini F, et al. Relationship between arterial stiffness and unattended or attended blood pressure values. J Hypertens. 2020; 38: 243-248.Crossref
- 11.
- Paini A, Agabiti Rosei C, De Ciuceis C, et al. Unattended versus attended blood pressure measurement: relationship with retinal microcirculation. J Clin Med. 2022; 11: 6966.Crossref
- 12.
- Palomba C, Donadio S, Canciello G, et al. Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement and cardiac target organ damage, a pilot study. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2019; 26: 383-389.Crossref
- 13.
- Parati G, Stergiou GS, Bilo G, et al. Home blood pressure monitoring: methodology, clinical relevance and practical application: a 2021 position paper by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability of the European Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens. 2021; 39: 1742-1767.
- 14.
- Stergiou GS, Mukkamala R, Avolio A, et al. Cuffless blood pressure measuring devices: review and statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability. J Hypertens. 2022; 40: 1449-1460.Crossref
- 15.
- Stergiou GS, Avolio AP, Palatini P, et al. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for the validation of cuffless blood pressure measuring devices: European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability. J Hypertens. 2023; 41: 2074-2087.Crossref