Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Uncontrolled hypertension can result in severe clinical conditions such as stroke, chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure, especially in African American populations. To the knowledge of the authors, the effect of time sequence on blood pressure (BP) using an Automated Office Blood Pressure (AOBP) device has not been documented in an African American cohort. The objective of this study was to investigate the possible influence of time sequence of measurement (pre- and post-physician visit) on BP readings in an African American cohort, in the presence or absence of a Medical Assistant (MA) via AOBP monitoring.
METHODS
A two-phase, single-blinded, non-randomized trial was conducted at MI-based Ascension Providence Hospital with a convenience sample of hypertensive patients. BP readings were taken using both an Omron 907 (Omron Corp., Kyoto, Japan) and a Welch Allyn (WA) Connex Spot Monitor (Welch Allyn, Inc., Skaneateles Falls, NY) AOBP devices. Descriptive statistics were generated, and T-tests were performed.
RESULTS
In Phase 1, (N = 148), the mean systolic/diastolic readings for the pre-physician visits (141/82 mmHg) were statistically significantly higher than the post-visit readings (134/80 mmHg) (p ≤ 0.02). Post-visit physician readings from either AOBP device did not differ statistically (p = 0.72). In Phase 2 (n = 50), the presence of an MA resulted in significantly higher readings than when an MA was absent, however, the results of Phase 2 also supported the trends for lower BP post-physician visit found in Phase 1.
CONCLUSION
Based on the consistency of these results, a post-physician visit AOBP reading, in the presence or absence of an MA, may provide a more accurate BP measurement to determine whether or not to treat hypertension in African American patients.
Keywords: blood pressure, time sequence, African American, automated office blood pressure
INTRODUCTION
Hypertension is defined as a systolic blood pressure (BP) greater than 130 mmHg or diastolic BP greater than 80 mmHg or taking medicine for hypertension. It is one of the most frequently encountered conditions in adult primary care, with a higher prevalence and greater disease burden in African American populations.1 More specifically, the overall prevalence of hypertension among African Americans is 39.1% while in non-Hispanic Whites it is 28.5%.1 Uncontrolled hypertension can result in severe, sometimes life-threatening conditions including stroke, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure.2
Automated Office Blood Pressure (AOBP) monitoring is a method of obtaining blood pressure with a single or multiple reading automated system allowing patients to rest comfortably prior to measurements being obtained.3 This method creates a delay in the BP measurement, allowing for staff to be absent for five minutes prior to readings being taken. A more involved assessment, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) assesses daytime and nighttime blood pressure during routine daily activities typically for one 24-hour period, and of all measuring techniques is considered a gold standard as it correlates best with target (i.e., heart, kidney, and brain) organ damage and mortality.4 AOBP readings had been demonstrated as not significantly different from those measure using ABPM.5
BP is traditionally measured at the beginning of an office visit, prior to seeing a physician. African American individuals have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials assessing blood pressure diagnosis/treatment, despite shouldering a greater proportion of the overall disease burden.6 In addition, the efficacy of AOBP measurement has not been well studied in the African American population.
Complicating BP measurement is the fact that the presence of clinic staff while measurement is taken may itself increase BP. Sometimes referred to as “Whitecoat Hypertension,” this can be a common phenomenon associated with overestimation of a patient’s true average BP, leading to difficulties in appropriately diagnosing and treating patient hypertension.7 Accurate measurement of BP in the clinic is critical for maintaining good control and preventing the over or under-treatment of hypertension.8 The authors were unable to identify previous literature specifically examining the effect of time sequence on BP measurements for an African American cohort, such as comparing BP measurements before and after the physician encounter, as well as with the presence or absence of a medical assistant (MA).
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of time sequence in the measurement (pre- and post-physician visit) of blood pressure in an African American cohort in the presence or absence of a MA. More specifically, the objectives of this study were twofold: 1) to determine the concordance of single vs multiple reading automated BP devices pre- and post-physician visit without a clinic staff (i.e., MA) present; and 2. to determine whether the presence of a MA altered the concordance of the AOBP measurements pre- and post-physician visit.
METHODS
Study Design
Prior to data collection, the study was approved by Ascension Providence IRB. From April 2017 to December 2018 a two-phase, prospective, single-blinded and non-randomized trial was conducted at the Ascension Providence Hospital Academic Internal Medicine clinic.
Sample Population
A convenience sample of male and female African American patients who were 18 years and older with a previous diagnosis of hypertension who were attending clinic for a routine visit were recruited and consented. Exclusion criteria included history of end-stage renal disease with an arterio-venous fistula (i.e., an abnormal connection between an artery and a vein), arm circumference >20 cm or < 7 cm, history of breast cancer with previous mastectomy or upper extremity lymphedema, as the presence of any of these factors could have skewed sample BP readings. All eligible patients coming for their scheduled visits were screened by an MA and asked if they wanted to participate in the study. Once a potential participant was identified, the MA provided a study information sheet. If the patient agreed to participate, a written consent was obtained in the exam room.
Study Procedure
Phase 1
During the Phase 1 pre-physician visit period (intake), patients were placed in an exam room, feet on the floor, and an initial single measurement BP (“Pre Omron single)” was taken by an MA using an Omron 907 (Omron Corp., Kyoto, Japan) AOBP device. Immediately following their physician visit, two measures were done. First, a series of three unobserved measurements were obtained within a five-minute pre-programmed interval using a Welch Allyn (WA) Connex Spot Monitor (Welch Allyn, Inc., Skaneateles Falls, NY) device while the patient was alone in the room. The three readings were averaged (Post WA multiple). Second, this was followed by a final single measurement BP (“Post Omron single”) by the MA. The two post readings were used to determine concurrence between the two devices.
Phase 2
All BP measurements during Phase 2 were conducted in the same manner as Phase 1, but on two groups of patients. To determine the possibility of Whitecoat effect, one group had an MA in the room (i.e., “MA in”) during the WA device measurements. The second group had the “MA out of the room (i.e.,”MA out)” during the automated WA BP measurements. Patients in the MA out group were under the care of one physician and patients in the MA in group were under the care of another physician.
Additional Study Measures
In addition to the blood pressure readings, demographic & medical history were abstracted from patients’ charts. This included: age, gender, height, weight, BMI, major comorbidities (e.g., obesity, Diabetes Mellitus (DM), cardiovascular disease, smoking, obstructive sleep apnea, and whether or not the patient was receiving prescribed blood pressure medications.
Data Analyses
Descriptive statistics were generated, and inferential statistical analyses were conducted by the second author (NJ) using SPSS Version 23 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. During Phase 1 and Phase 2, a two-tailed paired Student’s t-test was performed to compare differences in sample patients’ blood pressure readings within a subgroup. During Phase 2, an independent Student’s t test was performed to compare differences between patient subgroups.
RESULTS
Phase 1
A total of N = 148 African American patients with a mean age of 59.5 (SD = 13.2 years) were included, 88 (59.5%) of which were female. Patients’ average BMI was 33.4 (SD = 13.5). The sample has documented diabetes as the most common comorbidity, with 47 (32%) patients having this condition. A total of 33 (22%) of patients were smokers, while 10 (7%) had obstructive sleep apnea. As expected, most patients (i.e., 119 (80%)) were on at least one prescribed BP medication, while 76 (51%) were on calcium channel blocker (CCB) and 69 (47%) were on diuretics as additional medications (Table 1).
Table 1. Phase 1: Demographic, comorbidities, and blood pressure medication information of 148 patients. Data are expressed in frequency, percentages, or mean ± standard deviation (SD).
| Factor | Measure |
|---|---|
| Demographic | |
| Sex (male) | 60 (40.5%) |
| Age (years) | 59.5 (SD = 13.2) |
| Height (meters) | 1.70 (SD = 0.13) |
| Weight (kilograms) | 93.8 (SD = 24.0) |
| BMI | 33.4 (SD = 13.5) |
| Comorbidities | |
| Diabetes Mellitus | 47 (32%) |
| Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) | 19 (13%) |
| Smoker | 32 (22%) |
| Obstructive Sleep Apnea | 10 (7%) |
| Blood Pressure Medicines | |
| Calcium channel blocker (CCB) | 76 (51%) |
| Diuretic | 69 (47%) |
| Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) | 40 (27%) |
| Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) | 29 (20%) |
| Any BP medication | 119 (80%) |
Table 2 depicts systolic and diastolic blood pressure reading patterns. The mean systolic BP (Pre Omron single) was statistically significantly higher by over seven points (140.87 mmHg) compared to the Post WA multiple (133.51 mmHg, p < 0.01) and Post Omron single (133.41 mmHg, p < 0.01). The Post WA multiple and Post Omron single systolic BP were not statistically significantly different (p = 0.92).
Table 2. Phase 1 systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings.
| Blood Pressure Measure | Sequence and Device | Is the Pre Omron single different from the Post Omron single? (p value) | Is the Post WA multiple different from the Pre Omron single? (p value) | Is the Post Omron single different from the Post WA multiple (p value)? | ||
| Pre Omron single | Post WA multiple | Post Omron single | ||||
| Systolic Mean (mmHg) | 140.87 | 133.51 | 133.41 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | 0.92 |
| Systolic Standard Deviation (mmHg) | 22.85 | 19.03 | 21.03 | |||
| Diastolic Mean (mmHg) | 81.89 | 80.22 | 80.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.73 |
| Diastolic Standard Deviation (mmHg) | 13.17 | 10.09 | 11.27 | |||
The same trends were observed with sample diastolic readings, where the Pre Omron single was higher by at least 1.67 points compared to the Post WA multiple (p = 0.02) and Post Omron single (p = 0.02). The Post WA multiple (80.22 mmHg) and Post Omron single (80.02 mmHg) diastolic readings were not statistically significantly different (p = 0.73).
Phase 2
When the two groups (i.e., MA in and MA out) were compared, there was no statistically significant difference by gender (p = 0.25), BMI (p = 0.16), or by comorbidities of diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, smoking or hypertension (Table 3). In addition, there was no significant difference across types of hypertension medications taken. However, there was a significant difference in mean age of subjects for MA in the room, 56 (SD = 10), who were younger, compared to mean MA out of the room, 67 (SD = 10), p < 0.01 (Table 3).
Table 3. Phase 2: Demographic, comorbidities and blood pressure medication information of patients (N = 25 each group). Data are expressed in frequency, percentages, or mean ± standard deviation.
| Factors | MA In Group | MA Out Group | p-value for MA In vs MA Out |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||
| Sex (male) | 13 (52%) | 8 (32%) | 0.25 |
| Age (years) | 56 (SD = 10) | 67 (SD = 10) | < 0.01 |
| Height (meters) | 1.70 (SD = 0.10) | 1.65 (SD = 0.08) | 0.02 |
| Weight (kilograms) | 88.9 (SD = 22.7) | 90.3 (SD = 23.6) | 0.83 |
| BMI | 30.5 (SD = 6.5) | 33.0 (SD = 8.3) | 0.16 |
| Comorbidities | |||
| Diabetes Mellitus | 8 (32%) | 9 (36%) | 1.0 |
| Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) | 1 (4%) | 2 (8%) | 1.0 |
| Smoker | 4 (16%) | 1 (4%) | 0.35 |
| Obstructive Sleep Apnea | 2 (8%) | 0 | 0.50 |
| Blood Pressure Medicines | |||
| Calcium channel blocker (CCB) | 15 (60%) | 17 (68%) | 0.80 |
| Diuretic | 7 (28%) | 7 (28%) | 1.0 |
| Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) | 6 (24%) | 4 (16%) | 0.73 |
| Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) | 6 (24%) | 7 (28%) | 1 |
| Any BP medication | 19 (76%) | 24 (96%) | 0.10 |
When comparing the two subgroups, a significant difference in all BP readings were noted (Table 4). For all measurements taken, the MA in group had higher average blood pressures compared to the MA out group. Despite this, the Pre Omron single reading was always higher than readings taken at the end of the patient visit (Post WA multiple and Post Omron single).
Table 4. Phase 2: Mean blood pressure readings of patients with the Medical Assistant in (MA In) and out (MA Out) of the room.
| Sequence and Device | BP Measurement | MA In Group | MA Out Group | MA In vs MA Out |
| Mean (mmHg) | Mean (mmHg) | p-value | ||
| Pre Omron single | Systolic | 144.7 (SD = 22.0) | 132.6 (SD = 15.7) | 0.03 |
| Diastolic | 86.8 (SD = 11.5) | 74.2 (SD = 10.6) | < 0.01 | |
| Post WA multiple | Systolic | 138.53 (SD = 21.7) | 124.2 (SD = 14.5) | < 0.01 |
| Diastolic | 84.28 (SD = 11.6) | 72.1 (SD = 7.4) | < 0.01 | |
| Post Omron single | Systolic | 139.84 (SD = 23.6) | 124.4 (SD = 14.2) | 0.01 |
| Diastolic | 84.64 (SD = 11.4) | 72.3 (SD = 7.3) | < 0.01 |
*Sample size for each group is N = 25.
Table 5 shows the mean change in sample patients’ blood pressure readings for each of the two subgroups: the Medical Assistant in (MA In) and out (MA Out) of the room. In the MA in subgroup, Pre Omron single vs Post WA multiple resulted in a statistically significant difference in mean systolic readings (p < 0.01), although not in diastolic (p = 0.06) BP readings. The Pre vs Post Omron single readings were not statistically significant for both systolic (p = 0.07) and diastolic (p = 0.11) BP readings. The Post Omron single vs Post WA multiple were not statistically significant for systolic (p = 0.52) and diastolic (p = 0.50) BP readings.
Table 5. Phase 2: Mean difference between blood pressure readings of patients within each of the two groups: the Medical Assistant in (MA In) and out (MA Out) of the room.
| Sequence and Device | BP Measurement | MA In Group | MA Out Group | ||
| Difference (mmHg) | p value | Difference (mmHg) | p value | ||
| Pre Omron single vs. Post WA multiple | Systolic | 6.15 | < 0.01 | 8.35 | < 0.01 |
| Diastolic | 2.52 | 0.06 | 2.07 | 0.21 | |
| Pre vs. Post Omron single | Systolic | 4.84 | 0.07 | 8.2 | < 0.01 |
| Diastolic | 2.16 | 0.11 | 1.88 | 0.25 | |
| Post Omron single vs. Post WA multiple | Systolic | -1.31 | 0.52 | -0.15 | 0.32 |
| Diastolic | -0.36 | 0.47 | -0.19 | < 0.01 | |
In the MA out group, Pre Omron single vs Post WA multiple resulted in a statistically significant difference in systolic (p < 0.01) but not in diastolic (p = 0.21) BP readings. The Pre vs Post Omron single readings yielded a statistically significant difference in systolic (p < 0.01) but not in diastolic (p = 0.25) BP reading. The differences in Post Omron single vs Post WA multiple were not statistically significant for systolic (p = 0.32) but were statistically significant for diastolic (p < 0.01) BP readings.
DISCUSSION
In summary, Phase 1 demonstrated a significant difference between pre- and post- physician visit BP readings, indicating that the sequence of BP measurement could be an important factor. Phase 2, confirmed Phase 1 in that all post - physician measures were lower compared to pre-physician visit BP measures. During Phase 2, patients in both groups exhibited significantly lower post-physician systolic BP readings compared to their pre-physician visit. The diastolic, although trending towards lower post BP readings, did not reach statistical significance. We have concluded that this may be due at least in part to our smaller sample size.
In addition, our initial findings indicated that the multiple readings with Post WA multiple were not statistically different when compared to the Post Omron single reading. This may be important since AOBP with multiple reading devices has been correlated with ABPM.8 ABPM is considered the BP monitoring gold standard for elevated BP.9,10 This may also indicate that the post-physician visit measurements may provide truer BP measures for determining whether to treat hypertension.
ABPM was superior for predicting clinical outcomes.9 Although ABPM is considered the gold standard, it may be cost prohibitive and logistically difficult in many primary care clinic settings.9 Using AOBP represents measurement in a real-world setting that is less expensive. In addition, AOBP has been adopted by numerous international organizations supporting it as a “better” approach to measuring BP.8,11–13
In terms of Whitecoat effect, we found some evidence for this in Phase 2 results in this population of patients. The Whitecoat effect is consistent with what is found in the literature.4 For example, this residual effect was sustained when comparing the mean difference in systolic BP reading from Pre Omron single in the MA in group (4.84 mmHg) to the Post Omron single in the MA out group (8.20 mmHg).
This information can be potentially beneficial to our clinic and others since most BP measurements are taken at the beginning of the visit. These study findings may help improve accuracy and prevent over or under treatment of hypertension. For example, post-physician AOBP monitoring without an MA present may be useful in African American predominant areas and lead to greater blood pressure measurement accuracy, diagnosis, and improved hypertension treatment.
Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. We did not randomize the sequence of Omron single and WA multiple device readings during post- physician visit measurements. In addition, although we saw a similar trend between Phase 1 and 2 results, the small number of patients in Phase 2 yielded statistically inconclusive results. Also, age differences between the MA in and MA out subgroups (i.e., MA in patients significantly younger) may have skewed our results.
Future studies could include a trial which measures a Pre and a Post Omron single reading coupled with Pre and a Post WA reading. This would be to exclude the possibility that the phenomenon we are observing is related to multiple readings. It is also important to confirm the correlation between the Post WA multiple and Post Omron single readings at the end of the visit. A subsequent RCT to compare end of office visit readings to either home blood pressure readings or 24-hour ambulatory monitoring is also recommended.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on these study results, measuring a patients’ blood pressure a second time at the end of their office visits may provide more accurate representations of their typical out of office blood pressures. Post-physician AOBP monitoring without an MA present may be particularly useful for African American patients and lead to greater blood pressure measurement accuracy, diagnosis, and improved hypertension treatment.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements
1. Cheryl Kemp, RN and all the Medical Assistants for their valuable help in consenting patients or assisting with the study.
2. Ascension Providence Hospital Research Committee for providing funding to purchase the Welch Allyn Connex Spot Monitor device used in this study.
Funding Statement
Ascension Providence Hospital Research Committee provided funding to purchase the Welch Allyn Connex Spot Monitor device used in this study.
References
- Management of hypertension in African-Americans. Nesbitt Shawna D. Sep 30;2009 US Cardiology. 6(2):59–62. doi: 10.15420/usc.2009.6.2.59. doi: 10.15420/usc.2009.6.2.59. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Tackling G., Borhade M.B. StatPearls . StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Hypertensive heart disease. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- O'Brien E. Heart. 5. Vol. 89. BMJ; Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension; pp. 571–576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- The importance of the clinical observer in the development of a white-coat effect in African–American patients with hypertension. Labinson Paul T., Giacco Sharon, Gift Henry, Mansoor George A., White William B. Jun;2008 Blood Press Monit. 13(3):139–142. doi: 10.1097/mbp.0b013e3282f76713. doi: 10.1097/mbp.0b013e3282f76713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Impact of Clinic-Based Blood Pressure Approaches on Blood Pressure Measurement. Juraschek Stephen P, Ishak Anthony, Mukamal Kenneth J, Cohen Marc L, Beach Jennifer L. 2020Am J Hypertens. 33(1):26–30. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpz118. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpz118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Prevalence, determinants, and clinical significance of masked hypertension in a population-based sample of African Americans: the Jackson Heart Study. Diaz Keith M., Veerabhadrappa Praveen, Brown Michael D., Whited Matthew C., Dubbert Patricia M., Hickson DeMarc A. 2015Am J Hypertens. 28(7):900–908. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpu241. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpu241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Blood pressure measurement: clinic, home, ambulatory, and beyond. Drawz Paul E., Abdalla Mohamed, Rahman Mahboob. Sep;2012 American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 60(3):449–462. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.01.026. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.01.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Automated office blood pressure measurement in primary care. Myers M.G., Kaczorowski J., Dawes M., Godwin M. 2014Can Fam Physician. 60(2):127–132. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of blood pressure screening methods with consideration of rescreening intervals: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Piper Margaret A., Evans Corinne V., Burda Brittany U., Margolis Karen L., O'Connor Elizabeth, Whitlock Evelyn P. Feb 3;2015 Annals of Internal Medicine. 162(3):192–204. doi: 10.7326/m14-1539. doi: 10.7326/m14-1539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Measurement of Blood Pressure in Humans: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Muntner Paul, Shimbo Daichi, Carey Robert M., Charleston Jeanne B., Gaillard Trudy, Misra Sanjay, Myers Martin G., Ogedegbe Gbenga, Schwartz Joseph E., Townsend Raymond R., Urbina Elaine M., Viera Anthony J., White William B., Wright Jackson T. Jr, on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Clinical Cardiology; and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research May;2019 Hypertension. 73(5):e35–e66. doi: 10.1161/hyp.0000000000000087. doi: 10.1161/hyp.0000000000000087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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. Roerecke Michael, Kaczorowski Janusz, Myers Martin G. Mar 1;2019 JAMA Internal Medicine. 179(3):351–362. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6551. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6551. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hypertension Canada’s 2018 Guidelines for Diagnosis, Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Treatment of Hypertension in Adults and Children. Nerenberg Kara A., Zarnke Kelly B., Leung Alexander A., Dasgupta Kaberi, Butalia Sonia, McBrien Kerry, Harris Kevin C., Nakhla Meranda, Cloutier Lyne, Gelfer Mark, Lamarre-Cliche Maxime, Milot Alain, Bolli Peter, Tremblay Guy, McLean Donna, Padwal Raj S., Tran Karen C., Grover Steven, Rabkin Simon W., Moe Gordon W., Howlett Jonathan G., Lindsay Patrice, Hill Michael D., Sharma Mike, Field Thalia, Wein Theodore H., Shoamanesh Ashkan, Dresser George K., Hamet Pavel, Herman Robert J., Burgess Ellen, Gryn Steven E., Grégoire Jean C., Lewanczuk Richard, Poirier Luc, Campbell Tavis S., Feldman Ross D., Lavoie Kim L., Tsuyuki Ross T., Honos George, Prebtani Ally P.H., Kline Gregory, Schiffrin Ernesto L., Don-Wauchope Andrew, Tobe Sheldon W., Gilbert Richard E., Leiter Lawrence A., Jones Charlotte, Woo Vincent, Hegele Robert A., Selby Peter, Pipe Andrew, McFarlane Philip A., Oh Paul, Gupta Milan, Bacon Simon L., Kaczorowski Janusz, Trudeau Luc, Campbell Norman R.C., Hiremath Swapnil, Roerecke Michael, Arcand Joanne, Ruzicka Marcel, Prasad G.V. Ramesh, Vallée Michel, Edwards Cedric, Sivapalan Praveena, Penner S. Brian, Fournier Anne, Benoit Geneviève, Feber Janusz, Dionne Janis, Magee Laura A., Logan Alexander G., Côté Anne-Marie, Rey Evelyne, Firoz Tabassum, Kuyper Laura M., Gabor Jonathan Y., Townsend Raymond R., Rabi Doreen M., Daskalopoulou Stella S. May;2018 Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 34(5):506–525. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2018.02.022. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2018.02.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension [published correction appears in Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 1;40(5):475] Williams Bryan, Mancia Giuseppe, Spiering Wilko, Agabiti Rosei Enrico, Azizi Michel, Burnier Michel, Clement Denis L, Coca Antonio, de Simone Giovanni, Dominiczak Anna, Kahan Thomas, Mahfoud Felix, Redon Josep, Ruilope Luis, Zanchetti Alberto, Kerins Mary, Kjeldsen Sverre E, Kreutz Reinhold, Laurent Stephane, Lip Gregory Y H, McManus Richard, Narkiewicz Krzysztof, Ruschitzka Frank, Schmieder Roland E, Shlyakhto Evgeny, Tsioufis Costas, Aboyans Victor, Desormais Ileana, De Backer Guy, Heagerty Anthony M, Agewall Stefan, Bochud Murielle, Borghi Claudio, Boutouyrie Pierre, Brguljan Jana, Bueno Héctor, Caiani Enrico G, Carlberg Bo, Chapman Neil, Cífková Renata, Cleland John G F, Collet Jean-Philippe, Coman Ioan Mircea, de Leeuw Peter W, Delgado Victoria, Dendale Paul, Diener Hans-Christoph, Dorobantu Maria, Fagard Robert, Farsang Csaba, Ferrini Marc, Graham Ian M, Grassi Guido, Haller Hermann, Hobbs F D Richard, Jelakovic Bojan, Jennings Catriona, Katus Hugo A, Kroon Abraham A, Leclercq Christophe, Lovic Dragan, Lurbe Empar, Manolis Athanasios J, McDonagh Theresa A, Messerli Franz, Muiesan Maria Lorenza, Nixdorff Uwe, Olsen Michael Hecht, Parati Gianfranco, Perk Joep, Piepoli Massimo Francesco, Polonia Jorge, Ponikowski Piotr, Richter Dimitrios J, Rimoldi Stefano F, Roffi Marco, Sattar Naveed, Seferovic Petar M, Simpson Iain A, Sousa-Uva Miguel, Stanton Alice V, van de Borne Philippe, Vardas Panos, Volpe Massimo, Wassmann Sven, Windecker Stephan, Zamorano Jose Luis, Windecker Stephan, Aboyans Victor, Agewall Stefan, Barbato Emanuele, Bueno Héctor, Coca Antonio, Collet Jean-Philippe, Coman Ioan Mircea, Dean Veronica, Delgado Victoria, Fitzsimons Donna, Gaemperli Oliver, Hindricks Gerhard, Iung Bernard, Jüni Peter, Katus Hugo A, Knuuti Juhani, Lancellotti Patrizio, Leclercq Christophe, McDonagh Theresa A, Piepoli Massimo Francesco, Ponikowski Piotr, Richter Dimitrios J, Roffi Marco, Shlyakhto Evgeny, Simpson Iain A, Sousa-Uva Miguel, Zamorano Jose Luis, Tsioufis Costas, Lurbe Empar, Kreutz Reinhold, Bochud Murielle, Rosei Enrico Agabiti, Jelakovic Bojan, Azizi Michel, Januszewics Andrzej, Kahan Thomas, Polonia Jorge, van de Borne Philippe, Williams Bryan, Borghi Claudio, Mancia Giuseppe, Parati Gianfranco, Clement Denis L, Coca Antonio, Manolis Athanasios, Lovic Dragan, Benkhedda Salim, Zelveian Parounak, Siostrzonek Peter, Najafov Ruslan, Pavlova Olga, De Pauw Michel, Dizdarevic-Hudic Larisa, Raev Dimitar, Karpettas Nikos, Linhart Aleš, Olsen Michael Hecht, Shaker Amin Fouad, Viigimaa Margus, Metsärinne Kaj, Vavlukis Marija, Halimi Jean-Michel, Pagava Zurab, Schunkert Heribert, Thomopoulos Costas, Páll Dénes, Andersen Karl, Shechter Michael, Mercuro Giuseppe, Bajraktari Gani, Romanova Tatiana, Trušinskis Kārlis, Saade Georges A, Sakalyte Gintare, Noppe Stéphanie, DeMarco Daniela Cassar, Caraus Alexandru, Wittekoek Janneke, Aksnes Tonje Amb, Jankowski Piotr, Polonia Jorge, Vinereanu Dragos, Baranova Elena I, Foscoli Marina, Dikic Ana Djordjevic, Filipova Slavomira, Fras Zlatko, Bertomeu-Martínez Vicente, Carlberg Bo, Burkard Thilo, Sdiri Wissem, Aydogdu Sinan, Sirenko Yuriy, Brady Adrian, Weber Thomas, Lazareva Irina, Backer Tine De, Sokolovic Sekib, Jelakovic Bojan, Widimsky Jiri, Viigimaa Margus, Pörsti Ilkka, Denolle Thierry, Krämer Bernhard K, Stergiou George S, Parati Gianfranco, Trušinskis Kārlis, Miglinas Marius, Gerdts Eva, Tykarski Andrzej, de Carvalho Rodrigues Manuel, Dorobantu Maria, Chazova Irina, Lovic Dragan, Filipova Slavomira, Brguljan Jana, Segura Julian, Gottsäter Anders, Pechère-Bertschi Antoinette, Erdine Serap, Sirenko Yuriy, Brady Adrian, ESC Scientific Document Group Aug 25;2018 Eur Heart J. 39(33):3021–3104. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy339. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]