Reliability of single-lead electrocardiogram interpretation to detect atrial fibrillation: insights from the SAFER feasibility study.

AIMS: Single-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) can be recorded using widely available devices such as smartwatches and handheld ECG recorders. Such devices have been approved for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. However, little evidence exists on the reliability of single-lead ECG interpretation. We aimed to assess the level of agreement on detection of AF by independent cardiologists interpreting single-lead ECGs and to identify factors influencing agreement. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a population-based AF screening study, adults aged ≥65 years old recorded four single-lead ECGs per day for 1-4 weeks using a handheld ECG recorder. Electrocardiograms showing signs of possible AF were identified by a nurse, aided by an automated algorithm. These were reviewed by two independent cardiologists who assigned participant- and ECG-level diagnoses. Inter-rater reliability of AF diagnosis was calculated using linear weighted Cohen's kappa (κw). Out of 2141 participants and 162 515 ECGs, only 1843 ECGs from 185 participants were reviewed by both cardiologists. Agreement was moderate: κw = 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.58) at participant level and κw = 0.58 (0.53-0.62) at ECG level. At participant level, agreement was associated with the number of adequate-quality ECGs recorded, with higher agreement in participants who recorded at least 67 adequate-quality ECGs. At ECG level, agreement was associated with ECG quality and whether ECGs exhibited algorithm-identified possible AF. CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability of AF diagnosis from single-lead ECGs was found to be moderate in older adults. Strategies to improve reliability might include participant and cardiologist training and designing AF detection programmes to obtain sufficient ECGs for reliable diagnoses.

Relationship between research activity and general practice performance: cross sectional and longitudinal analyses.

BACKGROUND: Research activity usually improves outcomes by being translated into practice. However, there is developing evidence that research activity itself may improve the overall performance of health care organisations. However, evidence that these relationships represent a causal impact of research activity is less clear. Additionally, the bulk of the existing evidence relates to hospital settings, and it is not known if those relationships would also be found in general practice, where most patient contacts occur. AIM: We sought to (a) test whether there were significant relationships between research activity in general practice and organisational performance (b) test whether those relationships were plausibly causal. DESIGN AND SETTING: We analysed national data between 2008 and 2019 using cross sectional and longitudinal analyses, on general practices in England. METHODS: We used cross-sectional, panel and instrumental variable analyses to explore relationships between research activity (including measures from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners) and practice performance (including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, prescribing quality and hospital admissions) Results: In cross-sectional analyses, research activity was positively associated with several measures of practice performance, including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, and reduced hospital admissions. The associations were generally modest in magnitude. However, longitudinal analyses did not support a reliable causal relationship. CONCLUSION: Similar to findings from hospital settings, research activity in general practice is associated with practice performance. There is less evidence that research is causing those improvements, although this may reflect the limited level of research activity in most practices. We identified no negative impacts, suggesting that research activity is a potential marker of quality and something that high quality practices can deliver alongside their core responsibilities.

Rapid implementation of blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy at a UK NHS Trust during the COVID-19 pandemic: a quality improvement evaluation.

BACKGROUND: This service evaluation describes the rapid implementation of self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) into maternity care at a tertiary referral centre during the COVID-19 pandemic. It summarises findings, identifies knowledge gaps and provides recommendations for further research and practice. INTERVENTION: Pregnant and postpartum women monitored their blood pressure (BP) at home, with instructions on actions to take if their BP exceeded pre-determined thresholds. Some also conducted proteinuria self-testing. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Maternity records, app data and staff feedback were used in interim evaluations to assess process effectiveness and guide adjustments, employing a Plan-Do-Study-Act and root cause analysis approach. RESULTS: Between March 2020 and August 2021, a total of 605 women agreed to self-monitor their BP, including 10 women with limited English. 491 registered for telemonitoring (81.2%). 21 (3.5%) took part in urine self-testing. Engagement was high and increased over time with no safety issues. Biggest concerns related to monitor supply and postnatal monitoring. In December 2020, SMBP was integrated into the standard maternity care pathway. CONCLUSIONS: This project demonstrated successful integration of SMBP into maternity care. Early stakeholder engagement and clear guidance were crucial and community midwifery support essential. Supplying BP monitors throughout pregnancy and post partum could improve the service and fully digitised maternity records would aid data collection. More research is needed on SMBP in the postnatal period and among non-English speakers. These findings support efforts to implement app-supported self-monitoring and guide future research.

The association between restricted activity and patient outcomes in older adults: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Restricted activity is a potential early marker of declining health in older adults. Previous studies of this association with patient outcomes have been inconclusive. This review aimed to evaluate the extent to which restricted activity is associated with decline in health. METHODS: A search was conducted for studies including people over 65 years old which investigated the association between measures of restricted activity and hospitalisation, cognitive decline, and mortality. Following data extraction by two reviewers, eligible studies were summarised using Inverse Variance Heterogeneity meta-analysis. RESULTS: The search identified 8,434 unique publications, with 11 eligible studies. Three measures of restricted activity were identified: bed rest, restricted movement, and dependency for activities of daily living (ADL). Three studies looked at hospitalisations, with two finding a significant association with bed rest or restricted movement and one showing no evidence of an association. Restricted activity was associated with a significant increase in mortality across all three measures (bed rest odds ratio [OR] 6.34, 95%CI 2.51-16.02, I2 = 76%; restricted movement OR 5.38 95%CI 2.60-11.13, I2 = 69%; general ADL dependency OR 4.65 95%CI 2.25-9.26, I2 = 84%). The significant heterogeneity observed could not be explained by restricting the analysis by length of follow-up, or measure of restricted activity. No meta-analysis was conducted on the limited evidence for cognitive decline outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Limited studies have considered the prognostic value of restricted activity in terms of predicting future declining health. Current evidence suggests restricted activity is associated with hospitalisation and mortality, and therefore could identify a group for whom early intervention might be possible.

Randomised controlled trial of population screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of evidence that the benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) outweigh the harms. Following the completion of the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) pilot trial, the aim of the main SAFER trial is to establish whether population screening for AF reduces incidence of stroke risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Approximately 82 000 people aged 70 years and over and not on oral anticoagulation are being recruited from general practices in England. Patients on the palliative care register or residents in a nursing home are excluded. Eligible people are identified using electronic patient records from general practices and sent an invitation and consent form to participate by post. Consenting participants are randomised at a ratio of 2:1 (control:intervention) with clustering by household. Those randomised to the intervention arm are sent an information leaflet inviting them to participate in screening, which involves use of a handheld single-lead ECG four times a day for 3 weeks. ECG traces identified by an algorithm as possible AF are reviewed by cardiologists. Participants with AF are seen by a general practitioner for consideration of anticoagulation. The primary outcome is stroke. Major secondary outcomes are: death, major bleeding and cardiovascular events. Follow-up will be via electronic health records for an average of 4 years. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat using time-to-event modelling. Results from this trial will be combined with follow-up data from the cluster-randomised pilot trial by fixed-effects meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will include public-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.

'Legacy publication of a 2009 validation of the Riester Big Ben Square Desk aneroid device for blood pressure measurement according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol for validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults (2002)'.

OBJECTIVE: To report a validation of the Riester Big Ben Square Desk Aneroid Sphygmomanometer according to the international protocol developed by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring of the European Society of Hypertension 2002 (ESH-IP 2002) in the interest of transparency. This legacy publication is intended to assure users that the device satisfied the requirements in place at that time. METHODS: Performance of the device was assessed by participants' age, sex, arm circumference and entry SBP/DBP. Validation was performed in 33 participants. The sphygmomanometer was assessed according to the ESH-IP, which defines zones of accuracy compared to the mercury standard as ≤5, ≤10, ≤15 mmHg or more. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) age was 50.5 ±â€…13.0 years, range 29-71 years, entry SBP 142.6 ±â€…23.7 mmHg, entry DBP 89.0 ±â€…17.8 mmHg. The device passed all the requirements listed and the validation protocol. The Riester Big Ben Square Desk aneroid sphygmomanometer slightly underestimated the observer-measured SBP, yet slightly overestimated DBP. The observer-device disagreement was -0.8 ±â€…6.4 mmHg SBP and +0.6 ±â€…4.0 mmHg DBP. CONCLUSION: These data show that the Riester Big Ben Square Desk aneroid sphygmomanometer fulfilled the ESH-IP 2002 requirements for the validation of BP monitors. It was on this basis that the British and Irish Hypertension Society recommended it for clinical use in the adult population.

Self-monitoring blood pressure in Pregnancy: Evaluation of health professional experiences of the BUMP trials.

BACKGROUND: The BUMP trials evaluated a self-monitoring of blood pressure intervention in addition to usual care, testing whether they improved detection or control of hypertension for women at risk of hypertension or with hypertension during pregnancy. This process evaluation aimed to understand healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences of the BUMP trials of self-monitoring of blood pressure during pregnancy. METHODS: Twenty-two in-depth qualitative interviews and an online survey with 328 healthcare professionals providing care for pregnant people in the BUMP trials were carried out across five maternity units in England. RESULTS: Analysis used Normalisation Process Theory to identify factors required for successful implementation and integration into routine practice. Healthcare professionals felt self-monitoring of blood pressure did not over-medicalise pregnancy for women with, or at risk of, hypertension. Most said self-monitored readings positively affected their clinical encounters and professional roles, provided additive information on which to base decisions and enriched their relationships with pregnant people. Self-monitoring of blood pressure shifts responsibilities. Some healthcare professionals felt women having responsibility to decide on timing of monitoring and whether to act on self-monitored readings was unduly burdensome, and resulted in healthcare professionals taking additional responsibility for supporting them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite healthcare professionals' early concerns that self-monitoring of blood pressure might over-medicalise pregnancy, our analysis shows the opposite was the case when used in the care of pregnant people with, or at higher risk of, hypertension. While professionals retained ultimate clinical responsibility, they viewed self-monitoring of blood pressure as a means of sharing responsibility and empowering women to understand their bodies, to make judgements and decisions, and to contribute to their care.

Strategies for Identifying Patients for Deprescribing of Blood Pressure Medications in Routine Practice: An Evidence Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarise the evidence regarding which patients might benefit from deprescribing antihypertensive medications. RECENT FINDINGS: Older patients with frailty, multi-morbidity and subsequent polypharmacy are at higher risk of adverse events from antihypertensive treatment, and therefore may benefit from antihypertensive deprescribing. It is possible to examine an individual's risk of these adverse events, and use this to identify those people where the benefits of treatment may be outweighed by the harms. While such patients might be considered for deprescribing, the long-term effects of this treatment strategy remain unclear. Evidence now exists to support identification of those who are at risk of adverse events from antihypertensive treatment. These patients could be targeted for deprescribing interventions, although the long-term benefits and harms of this approach are unclear. PERSPECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials are still needed to examine the long-term effects of deprescribing in high-risk patients with frailty and multi-morbidity.

Comparison of clinic and home blood pressure readings in higher risk pregnancies - Secondary analysis of the BUMP 1 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinic and home blood pressure readings in higher risk pregnancies in the antenatal period from 20 weeks gestation, and to evaluate differences between the two modalities. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study comprising a secondary analysis of a large randomised controlled trial (BUMP 1). POPULATION: Normotensive women at higher risk of pregnancy hypertension randomised to self-monitoring of blood pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the overall mean difference between clinic and home readings for systolic blood pressure (sBP) and diastolic blood pressure (dBP). Blood pressure readings were averaged across each gestational week for each participant and compared within the same gestational week. Calculations of the overall differences were based on the average difference for each week for each participant. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 925 participants. In total, 92 (10 %) developed a hypertensive disorder during the pregnancy. A significant difference in the overall mean sBP (clinic - home) of 1.1 mmHg (0.5-1.6 95 %CI) was noted, whereas no significant difference for the overall mean dBP was found (0.0 mmHg (-0.4-0.4 95 %CI)). No tendency of proportional bias was noted based on Bland-Altman plots. Increasing body mass index in general increased the difference (clinic - home) for both sBP and dBP in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically significant difference was found between clinic and home blood pressure readings in normotensive higher risk pregnancies from gestational week 20+0 until 40+0. Clinic and home blood pressure readings might be considered equal during pregnancy in women who are normotensive at baseline.

Personalized Antihypertensive Treatment Optimization With Smartphone-Enabled Remote Precision Dosing of Amlodipine During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PERSONAL-CovidBP Trial).

BACKGROUND: The objective of the PERSONAL-CovidBP (Personalised Electronic Record Supported Optimisation When Alone for Patients With Hypertension: Pilot Study for Remote Medical Management of Hypertension During the COVID-19 Pandemic) trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of smartphone-enabled remote precision dosing of amlodipine to control blood pressure (BP) in participants with primary hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an open-label, remote, dose titration trial using daily home self-monitoring of BP, drug dose, and side effects with linked smartphone app and telemonitoring. Participants aged ≥18 years with uncontrolled hypertension (5-7 day baseline mean ≥135 mm Hg systolic BP or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic BP) received personalized amlodipine dose titration using novel (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 mg) and standard (5 and 10 mg) doses daily over 14 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was mean change in systolic BP from baseline to end of treatment. A total of 205 participants were enrolled and mean BP fell from 142/87 (systolic BP/diastolic BP) to 131/81 mm Hg (a reduction of 11 (95% CI, 10-12)/7 (95% CI, 6-7) mm Hg, P<0.001). The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses (84%); of those participants, 35% were controlled by 1 mg daily. The majority (88%) controlled on novel doses had no peripheral edema. Adherence to BP recording and reported adherence to medication was 84% and 94%, respectively. Patient retention was 96% (196/205). Treatment was well tolerated with no withdrawals from adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized dose titration with amlodipine was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating primary hypertension. The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses, and with personalization of dose there were no trial discontinuations due to drug intolerance. App-assisted remote clinician dose titration may better balance BP control and adverse effects and help optimize long-term care. REGISTRATION: URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.

The feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation using hand-held electrocardiogram devices.

AIMS: There are few data on the feasibility of population screening for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) using hand-held electrocardiogram (ECG) devices outside a specialist setting or in people over the age of 75. We investigated the feasibility of screening when conducted without face-to-face contact ('remote') or via in-person appointments in primary care and explored impact of age on screening outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: People aged ≥65 years from 13 general practices in England participated in screening during 2019-20. This involved attending a practice nurse appointment (10 practices) or receiving an ECG device by post (three practices). Participants were asked to use a hand-held ECG for 1-4 weeks. Screening outcomes included uptake, quality of ECGs, AF detection rates, and uptake of anticoagulation if AF was detected. Screening was carried out by 2141 (87.5%) of people invited to practice nurse-led screening and by 288 (90.0%) invited to remote screening. At least 56 interpretable ECGs were provided by 98.0% of participants who participated for 3 weeks, with no significant differences by setting or age, except people aged 85 or over (91.1%). Overall, 2.6% (64/2429) screened participants had AF, with detection rising with age (9.2% in people aged 85 or over). A total of 53/64 (82.8%) people with AF commenced anticoagulation. Uptake of anticoagulation did not vary by age. CONCLUSION: Population screening for paroxysmal AF is feasible in general practice and without face-to-face contact for all ages over 64 years, including people aged 85 and over.

Detection and Control of Pregnancy Hypertension Using Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure With Automated Telemonitoring: Cost Analyses of the BUMP Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy hypertension continues to cause maternal and perinatal morbidity. Two linked UK randomized trials showed adding self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) with automated telemonitoring to usual antenatal care did not result in earlier detection or better control of pregnancy hypertension. This article reports the trials' integrated cost analyses. METHODS: Two cost analyses. SMBP with usual care was compared with usual care alone in pregnant individuals at risk of hypertension (BUMP 1 trial [Blood Pressure Monitoring in High Risk Pregnancy to Improve the Detection and Monitoring of Hypertension], n=2441) and with hypertension (BUMP 2 trial, n=850). Clinical notes review identified participant-level antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care and these were costed. Comparisons between trial arms used means and 95% CIs. Within BUMP 2, chronic and gestational hypertension cohorts were analyzed separately. Telemonitoring system costs were reported separately. RESULTS: In BUMP 1, mean (SE) total costs with SMBP and with usual care were £7200 (£323) and £7063 (£245), respectively, mean difference (95% CI), £151 (-£633 to £936). For the BUMP 2 chronic hypertension cohort, corresponding figures were £13 384 (£1230), £12 614 (£1081), mean difference £323 (-£2904 to £3549) and for the gestational hypertension cohort were £11 456 (£901), £11 145 (£959), mean difference £41 (-£2486 to £2567). The per-person cost of telemonitoring was £6 in BUMP 1 and £29 in BUMP 2. CONCLUSIONS: SMBP was not associated with changes in the cost of health care contacts for individuals at risk of, or with, pregnancy hypertension. This is reassuring as SMBP in pregnancy is widely prevalent, particularly because of the COVID-19 pandemic. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334149.

Using self-monitoring to detect and manage raised blood pressure and pre-eclampsia during pregnancy: the BUMP research programme and its impact.

Raised blood pressure affects around ten percent of pregnancies worldwide, causing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Self-monitoring of blood pressure during higher-risk or hypertensive pregnancy has been shown to be feasible, acceptable, safe, and no more expensive than usual care alone. Additionally, self-testing for proteinuria has been shown to be just as accurate as healthcare professional testing, creating the potential for monitoring of multiple indicators through pregnancy. The work suggests however, that an organisational shift is needed to properly use and see benefits from self-monitored readings. This paper describes the findings from a large programme of work examining the use of self-monitoring in pregnancy, summarising the findings in the context of the wider literature and current clinical context. The BUMP Research Programme developed and tested self-monitoring and self-testing interventions for pregnancy. The work showed that self-monitoring during pregnancy was feasible, acceptable, safe, and no more expensive, but did not improve the detection or control of hypertension.

Cardiac Remodeling After Hypertensive Pregnancy Following Physician-Optimized Blood Pressure Self-Management: The POP-HT Randomized Clinical Trial Imaging Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive pregnancy disorders are associated with adverse cardiac remodeling, which can fail to reverse in the postpartum period in some women. The Physician-Optimized Postpartum Hypertension Treatment trial demonstrated that improved blood pressure control while the cardiovascular system recovers postpartum associates with persistently reduced blood pressure. We now report the effect on cardiac remodeling. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial, in a single UK hospital, 220 women were randomly assigned 1:1 to self-monitoring with research physician-optimized antihypertensive titration or usual postnatal care from a primary care physician and midwife. Participants were 18 years of age or older, with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, requiring antihypertensives on hospital discharge postnatally. Prespecified secondary cardiac imaging outcomes were recorded by echocardiography around delivery, and again at blood pressure primary outcome assessment, around 9 months postpartum, when cardiovascular magnetic resonance was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 187 women (101 intervention; 86 usual care) underwent echocardiography at baseline and follow-up, at a mean 258±14.6 days postpartum, of which 174 (93 intervention; 81 usual care) also had cardiovascular magnetic resonance at follow-up. Relative wall thickness by echocardiography was 0.06 (95% CI, 0.07-0.05; P<0.001) lower in the intervention group between baseline and follow-up, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance at follow-up demonstrated a lower left ventricular mass (-6.37 g/m2; 95% CI, -7.99 to -4.74; P<0.001), end-diastolic volume (-3.87 mL/m2; 95% CI, -6.77 to -0.98; P=0.009), and end-systolic volume (-3.25 mL/m2; 95% CI, 4.87 to -1.63; P<0.001) and higher left and right ventricular ejection fraction by 2.6% (95% CI, 1.3-3.9; P<0.001) and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.4-4.1; P<0.001), respectively. Echocardiography-assessed left ventricular diastolic function demonstrated a mean difference in average E/E' of 0.52 (95% CI, -0.97 to -0.07; P=0.024) and a reduction in left atrial volumes of -4.33 mL/m2 (95% CI, -5.52 to -3.21; P<0.001) between baseline and follow-up when adjusted for baseline differences in measures. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term postnatal optimization of blood pressure control after hypertensive pregnancy, through self-monitoring and physician-guided antihypertensive titration, associates with long-term changes in cardiovascular structure and function, in a pattern associated with more favorable cardiovascular outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04273854.

Long-Term Blood Pressure Control After Hypertensive Pregnancy Following Physician-Optimized Self-Management: The POP-HT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pregnancy hypertension results in adverse cardiac remodeling and higher incidence of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases in later life. Objective: To evaluate whether an intervention designed to achieve better blood pressure control in the postnatal period is associated with lower blood pressure than usual outpatient care during the first 9 months postpartum. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, blinded, end point trial set in a single hospital in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, following pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, requiring antihypertensive medication postnatally when discharged. The first enrollment occurred on February 21, 2020, and the last follow-up, November 2, 2021. The follow-up period was approximately 9 months. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to self-monitoring along with physician-optimized antihypertensive titration or usual postnatal care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure at 9 months postpartum, adjusted for baseline postnatal blood pressure. Results: Two hundred twenty participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n = 112) or the control group (n = 108). The mean (SD) age of participants was 32.6 (5.0) years, 40% had gestational hypertension, and 60% had preeclampsia. Two hundred participants (91%) were included in the primary analysis. The 24-hour mean (SD) diastolic blood pressure, measured at 249 (16) days postpartum, was 5.8 mm Hg lower in the intervention group (71.2 [5.6] mm Hg) than in the control group (76.6 [5.7] mm Hg). The between-group difference was -5.80 mm Hg (95% CI, -7.40 to -4.20; P < .001). Similarly, the 24-hour mean (SD) systolic blood pressure was 6.5 mm Hg lower in the intervention group (114.0 [7.7] mm Hg) than in the control group (120.3 [9.1] mm Hg). The between-group difference was -6.51 mm Hg (95% CI, -8.80 to -4.22; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center trial, self-monitoring and physician-guided titration of antihypertensive medications was associated with lower blood pressure during the first 9 months postpartum than usual postnatal outpatient care in the UK. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04273854.

A treatment strategy with nifedipine versus labetalol for women with pregnancy hypertension: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (Giant PANDA).

BACKGROUND: Approximately one in ten women have high blood pressure during pregnancy. Hypertension is associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, and as treatment improves maternal outcomes, antihypertensive treatment is recommended. Previous trials have been unable to provide a definitive answer on which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes and the need for robust evidence evaluating maternal and infant benefits and risks remains an important, unanswered question for research and clinical communities. METHODS: The Giant PANDA study is a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of a treatment initiation strategy with nifedipine (calcium channel blocker), versus labetalol (mixed alpha/beta blocker) in 2300 women with pregnancy hypertension. The primary objective is to evaluate if treatment with nifedipine compared to labetalol in women with pregnancy hypertension reduces severe maternal hypertension without increasing fetal or neonatal death or neonatal unit admission. Subgroup analyses will be undertaken by hypertension type (chronic, gestational, pre-eclampsia), diabetes (yes, no), singleton (yes, no), self-reported ethnicity (Black, all other), and gestational age at randomisation categories (11 + 0 to 19 + 6, 20 + 0 to 27 + 6, 28 + 0 to 34 + 6 weeks). A cost-effectiveness analysis using an NHS perspective will be undertaken using a cost-consequence analysis up to postnatal hospital discharge and an extrapolation exercise with a lifetime horizon conditional on the results of the cost-consequence analysis. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to address the uncertainty of which antihypertensive treatment is associated with optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. The trial results are intended to provide definitive evidence to inform guidelines and linked, shared decision-making tools, thus influencing clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2020-003410-12, ISRCTN: 12,792,616 registered on 18 November 2020.

Early Impacts of COVID-19 on Select Hospices: Operations, Care Delivery, and Service Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) has important implications for health care service delivery. Little is understood about how the PHE impacted community-based hospice providers and service delivery to hospice-eligible beneficiaries. The aim of this study was to describe hospice response to the PHE and correlated impacts on beneficiary receipt of hospice support services delivered to hospice-eligible beneficiaries participating in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Care Choices Model (MCCM), a national model testing the provision of certain hospice-like supportive services with concurrent usual care among seriously ill, community-residing Medicare beneficiaries that have not elected to receive hospice care. METHODS: We employed descriptive analysis using concurrent qualitative and quantitative data sources, consisting of provider surveys, beneficiary-level encounter data submitted by hospices, and Medicare administrative claims describing beneficiary service utilization. The sample included both hospice providers (N = 82) and beneficiaries (N = 2294) voluntarily participating in MCCM. RESULTS: Nearly all participating MCCM hospices adopted operational changes to address their staff and beneficiaries' safety during the COVID-19 PHE. We report changes to service delivery, including declines in total encounters as well as service modality, and the types of services provided. CONCLUSIONS: While the analyses reported indicate that seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries participating in MCCM were directly impacted by the PHE, we are still unclear whether changes in the service modality and encounters by provider type and the decline in average service counts per beneficiary are driven more by hospices or by beneficiary decisions to minimize exposure. Future research should attempt to disentangle these factors.

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.

BACKGROUND: There is intense effort to develop cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices, and several are already on the market claiming that they provide accurate measurements. These devices are heterogeneous in measurement principle, intended use, functions, and calibration, and have special accuracy issues requiring different validation than classic cuff BP monitors. To date, there are no generally accepted protocols for their validation to ensure adequate accuracy for clinical use. OBJECTIVE: This statement by the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability recommends procedures for validating intermittent cuffless BP devices (providing measurements every >30 sec and usually 30-60 min, or upon user initiation), which are most common. VALIDATION PROCEDURES: Six validation tests are defined for evaluating different aspects of intermittent cuffless devices: static test (absolute BP accuracy); device position test (hydrostatic pressure effect robustness); treatment test (BP decrease accuracy); awake/asleep test (BP change accuracy); exercise test (BP increase accuracy); and recalibration test (cuff calibration stability over time). Not all these tests are required for a given device. The necessary tests depend on whether the device requires individual user calibration, measures automatically or manually, and takes measurements in more than one position. CONCLUSION: The validation of cuffless BP devices is complex and needs to be tailored according to their functions and calibration. These ESH recommendations present specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices to ensure that only accurate devices will be used in the evaluation and management of hypertension.