The relation of work-related factors with ambulatory blood pressure and nocturnal blood pressure dipping among aging workers.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals with reduced nocturnal blood pressure (BP) dipping are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared to persons with normal BP dipping. Although the relation of work-related factors and BP has been studied extensively, very little is known of the association between work-related factors and 24-h BP patterns in aging workers. We examined the cross-sectional relation of work-related risk factors, including occupational status, work-time mode, job demands and job control, with ambulatory BP in aging workers, focusing on nocturnal BP dipping. METHODS: 208 workers (mean age 62 ± 3 years; 75% women) from two Finnish population-based cohort studies underwent 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. Work-related factors were inquired using a questionnaire. Nocturnal BP dipping was calculated as [1 - (asleep BP/awake BP)] × 100. RESULTS: Shift workers demonstrated a higher nocturnal diastolic BP dipping than regular day workers (19% vs. 17%, p = 0.03) and had a significantly higher systolic awake BP than regular day workers (136.5 mmHg vs. 132.5 mmHg, p = 0.03). Participants with high job demands demonstrated a smaller nocturnal systolic BP dipping than participants with low job demands (14% vs. 16%, p = 0.04). We did not observe significant differences in nocturnal systolic or diastolic BP dipping between groups categorized by occupational status or job control. CONCLUSIONS: Although shift workers have a higher daytime BP than regular daytime workers, they exhibit greater nighttime BP dipping. Participants with high job demand had smaller nighttime BP dipping than participants with low job demand. Job control or occupation did not affect the 24-h ambulatory BP profile of aging workers.

Agreement Between Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in Detecting Nighttime Hypertension and Nondipping Patterns in the General Population.

BACKGROUND: Nighttime blood pressure (BP) and nondipping pattern are strongly associated with hypertensive end-organ damage. However, no previous studies have compared the diagnostic agreement between ambulatory and home monitoring in detecting these BP patterns in the general population. METHODS: We studied a population-based sample of 180 persons aged 32-80 years. The study protocol included 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring, home daytime measurements over 7 days, home nighttime measurements (6 measurements over 2 consecutive nights using a timer-equipped home device), and ultrasound measurements for left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT). We defined nondipping as a <10% reduction in nighttime BP compared with daytime BP, and nighttime hypertension as BP ≥ 120/70 mm Hg. RESULTS: The agreement between ambulatory and home monitoring for detecting nighttime hypertension was good (80%, κ = 0.56, P < 0.001). However, their agreement in detecting nondipping status was poor (54%, κ = 0.12, P = 0.09). The magnitude of ambulatory systolic BP dipping percent was 1.7% higher than on home monitoring (P = 0.004), whereas no difference was observed for diastolic BP dipping (difference: 0.7%, P = 0.33). LVMI and IMT were significantly greater among individuals with nighttime hypertension than in normotensive individuals, irrespective of the measurement method. However, only ambulatory nondippers, but not home nondippers, had more advanced end-organ damage than dippers. CONCLUSION: We observed a good agreement between ambulatory and home BP monitoring in detecting nighttime hypertension in the general population. Two-night home monitoring could offer an inexpensive and feasible method for the diagnosis of nighttime hypertension.

Relation of blood pressure and organ damage: comparison between feasible, noninvasive central hemodynamic measures and conventional brachial measures.

OBJECTIVE: The present cross-sectional study investigated whether central SBP and pulse pressure (PP) measured noninvasively with a novel cuff-based stand-alone monitor are more strongly associated with hypertensive end-organ damage than corresponding brachial measures. METHODS: We investigated the cross-sectional association of central versus brachial SBP and PP with echocardiographic left ventricular mass index (LVMI), LV hypertrophy (LVH), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), and increased IMT (IMT ≥ 75th percentile) among 246 participants drawn from the general population (mean age 57.2 years, 55.3% women). RESULTS: All blood pressure (BP) measures were positively correlated with LVMI and IMT (P < 0.001 for all). Brachial and central SBP correlated equally strongly with LVMI (r = 0.42 versus 0.40, P for difference 0.19) and IMT (r = 0.32 versus 0.33, P = 0.60). However, brachial PP correlated more strongly than central PP with LVMI (r = 0.34 versus 0.27, P = 0.03) and IMT (r = 0.40 versus 0.35, P = 0.04). In multivariable-adjusted logistic models, all four BP measures were significantly associated with LVH and increased IMT (P ≤ 0.03 for all). However, the diagnostic accuracy of logistic regression models that included brachial or central hemodynamic parameters was similar for LVH [area under curve (AUC) for SBP: 0.74 versus 0.76, P = 0.16; AUC for PP: 0.75 versus 0.73, P = 0.35] and IMT (AUC for SBP: 0.61 versus 0.61, P = 0.67; AUC for PP: 0.63 versus 0.61, P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that central SBP and PP measured with a stand-alone noninvasive BP monitor do not improve diagnostic accuracy for end-organ damage over corresponding brachial measures.

The association between home vs. ambulatory night-time blood pressure and end-organ damage in the general population.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the agreement between night-time home and night-time ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and to compare their associations with hypertensive end-organ damage for the first time in the general population. METHODS: A population sample of 248 participants underwent measurements for night-time home BP (three measurements on two nights with a timer-equipped home device), night-time ambulatory BP, pulse wave velocity (PWV), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and echocardiographic left ventricular mass index (LVMI). RESULTS: No significant or systematic differences were observed between mean night-time ambulatory and home BPs (systolic/diastolic difference: 0.7 ±â€Š7.6/0.2 ±â€Š6.0 mmHg, P = 0.16/0.64). All night-time home and ambulatory BPs were positively correlated with PWV, IMT and LVMI (P < 0.01 for all). No significant differences in Pearson's correlations between end-organ damage and night-time home or ambulatory BP were observed (P ≥ 0.11 for all comparisons using Dunn and Clark's Z), except for a slightly stronger correlation between PWV and ambulatory SBP than for home SBP (r = 0.57 vs. 0.50, P = 0.03). The adjusted R of all multivariable-adjusted models for PWV, IMT or LVMI that included night-time home or ambulatory SBP/DBP were within 2/1%. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that night-time home and ambulatory measurements produce similar BP values that have comparable associations with end-organ damage in the general population even when a clinically feasible measurement protocol is used for measuring night-time home BP. In the future, night-time home BP measurement may offer a feasible and easily accessible alternative to ambulatory monitoring for the measurement of night-time BP.

Comparison of Acceptability of Traditional and Novel Blood Pressure Measurement Methods.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) monitor technology has developed significantly over the past years with the introduction of smaller and quieter home and ambulatory monitors that can both measure BP at night. The acceptability of different BP measurement methods using modern monitors is currently unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare patients' acceptability of traditional and novel BP measurement methods using up-to-date monitors. METHODS: A population sample of 223 participants underwent 4 office measurements on 2 occasions, a 24-hour ambulatory monitoring and 4 home measurements on 7 consecutive days with home nighttime (home-night) measurements on 2 nights. The acceptability of each method was evaluated with a questionnaire. Analysis of variance with post hoc Bonferroni correction was used to compare mean acceptability scores. RESULTS: Mean acceptability score, with a lower score indicating better acceptability, decreased from ambulatory (3.11±0.93) to home-night (2.74±0.81) to home (2.20±0.70) to office (1.95±0.63) measurements (P < 0.001 for all between-method comparisons). The largest between-method differences were observed in comfort of use and disturbance of everyday activities (P < 0.001). 73.1%, 31.8%, 1.3%, and 2.2% rated office, home, home-night, and ambulatory measurements as the most acceptable method, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the general population and under a research setting, office BP measurement was the method most preferred by the participants while home measurement was the second most preferred. Home-night measurement was slightly more preferred than ambulatory monitoring. However, before home-night BP measurement can be widely promoted as an alternative method for measuring nighttime BP, more evidence of its prognostic significance is needed.