High heritability of ambulatory blood pressure in families of East African descent.

We estimated the heritability of ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse pressure (PP) in east African families with at least 2 hypertensive siblings and living in the Seychelles islands (Indian Ocean). The sample consisted of 314 individuals (147 men and 167 women), both normotensive and hypertensive, from 76 pedigrees (mean+/-SD of 4.1+/-2.8 persons per pedigree). After a 2-week off-treatment period, daytime and nighttime ambulatory blood pressure (BP) was monitored. Office BP was measured with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. We estimated by maximum likelihood the age- and sex-adjusted heritabilities from the additive polygenic component of the variance of the traits allowing for the presence of other familial correlations. We also adjusted for ascertainment (ie, for the fact that 2 siblings had to be hypertensive) and examined the effect of adjusting for body mass index, 24-hour urinary excretion of sodium and potassium, plasma renin activity, and plasma aldosterone concentration. Heritability estimates (+/-SE) for ambulatory SBP, DBP, and PP were, respectively, 0.37+/-0.12/0.24+/-0.12/0.54+/-0.12 for daytime and 0.34+/-0.13/ 0.37+/-0.15/0.47+/-0.12 for nighttime measurements (P<0.05 for all estimates). Heritability estimates for office SBP, DBP, and PP were, respectively, 0.20+/-0.11, 0.05+/-0.09, and 0.37+/-0.12. Heritability estimates for SBP varied markedly according to whether participants were treated for hypertension at baseline. The present data show that ambulatory BP and PP have a high heritability in families of African descent. They also demonstrate that antihypertensive treatment and the number of BP measurements have a major influence on the heritability estimates.

Is nurse-measured blood pressure a valid substitute for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring?

BACKGROUND: Because ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is not available everywhere, the objective of the study was to determine whether nurse-measured blood pressure could be an acceptable substitute to ABPM. METHODS: We analyzed the data of 2385 consecutive patients referred to our hypertension clinic for the performance of ABPM. Before ambulatory monitoring was performed, a nurse-measured BP was obtained three times using a Y-tube connecting the sphygmomanometer and the recorder. We compared the mean value of the three nurse-measured blood pressures with that of the 12h daytime ambulatory monitoring, considered as the reference. RESULTS: The difference between the nurse-measured and the ambulatory blood pressure was small but statistically significant, indicating that nurse-measured blood pressure tends to overestimate both diastolic and systolic blood pressure. The difference between the nurse blood pressure and ABPM was greater among treated hypertensive patients than untreated patients. To diagnose hypertension, defined as a blood pressure of over 140/90mmHg by ABPM, the positive predictive value of the nurse blood pressure was 0.81 and the negative predictive value 0.63. However, these predictive values could be improved with less stringent cut-off values of blood pressure. Thus, for a diastolic blood pressure above 100mmHg, the positive predictive value of nurse blood pressure was 0.55 and the negative predictive value 0.91. These figures were relatively similar for previously treated and untreated patients. CONCLUSION: Nurse blood pressure is less accurate than ABPM in diagnosing hypertension, defined as a blood pressure of over 140/90mmHg. It could, however, be an acceptable substitute, especially to exclude people who do not need to be treated, in situations where lower resources require a less rigorous definition of hypertension.

A new technique for simultaneous validation of two manual nonmercury auscultatory sphygmomanometers (A&D UM-101 and Accoson Greenlight 300) based on the International protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Auscultatory nonmercury manual devices seem good alternatives for the mercury sphygmomanometers in the clinic and for research settings, but individual internal validation of each device is time-consuming. The aim of this study was to validate a new technique capable of testing two devices simultaneously, based on the International protocol of the European Society of Hypertension. METHODS: The concept of the new technique is to measure blood pressure alternatively by two observers using a mercury sphygmomanometer and by two observers using the A&D UM-101 and Accoson Greenlight 300 devices, connected by Y-tube to obtain simultaneous readings with both nonmercury devices. Thirty-three participants were enrolled (mean age 47.2±14.0 years). Nine sequential blood pressure measurements were performed for each participant. RESULTS: Both devices passed phase 1 using 15 participants. In phase 2.1 (n=33), on a maximum of 99 measurements, the Accoson device produced 81/95/99 measurements within 5/10/15 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 87/98/99 for diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The A&D device produced 86/96/99 for SBP and 94/99/99 for DBP. In phase 2.2 (n=33), 30 participants had at least 2 out of 3 SBP obtained with Accoson device within 5 mmHg of the mercury device, as compared with 29 of 33 participants with the A&D device. For DBP, this was 33 of 33 participants for both devices. CONCLUSION: Both the nonmercury devices passed the International protocol. The new technique of simultaneous device testing using a Y-tube represents a time saving application of the International protocol.