Of the 102 participants, 89 (87.3%) Whatever the method, get the same diagnosis, with a great correspondence between the method (-0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.91). We found strong correlations between diastolic blood pressure (r-0.85) and systolic blood pressure (r-0.76). The sensitivity and specificity of the new method of diagnosing white hypertension was 85.2% (95% confidence interval between 67.5% and 94.1%). 92% (95% confidence interval, 83.6% -96.3%). To evaluate alternatives to measure the ambulatory pressure that best predicts the response to treatment and the negative result. Studies that have studied other measurement methods similar to ABPM have yielded mixed results22-24. For this reason, the objective of this study was to validate a new method of blood pressure monitoring (1-h) using a single ABPM device and to evaluate its effectiveness in diagnosing and monitoring HT in hypertensive patient groups. Forward-looking studies show that ambulatory blood pressure is a much better predictor of adverse outcome and response to treatment than physician-based measures — We used patients with recently diagnosed hypertension and patients with poorly controlled hypertension, but this reflects the latest guidelines.6 In addition, subgroups (newly diagnosed and established hypertension) had very similar blood pressure levels. During the hospitalization, the research team collected information for each participant on socio-demographic characteristics, medical history, chronic diseases and drug use.
Blood pressure measurements were then performed by 5 different methods: (i) BP measurement by nurses and (ii) staff physicians, (iii) self-BP measurements by patients, (iv) non-invasive continuous monitoring of the beating of the fingers at stroke and (v) 24-h BP (24hBPM). Why is outpatient monitoring not often used to make management decisions? The problem is not only to extrapolate the results of research or secondary supply to routine parameters, but also that thresholds derived from previous research have been used for treatment decisions. However, several lines of evidence show that patients with ambulatory daytime pressure of less than 135/85 mm Hg have a low risk of consecutive events2 Ambulatory pressure of 135/85 mm Hg is therefore a good control and corresponds approximately to a clinical pressure of 140/90 mm Hg,2 Markers .3 The diagnostic threshold in the clinic is generally higher (>160/100 mm Hg for most patients),4 a higher outpatient threshold of 145/95 mm Hg.5 Recent guidelines have recommended outpatient monitoring for both initial diagnosis and control evaluation6. Although few studies have examined the role of primary procurement assessment. A mixed-environment study showed that after ambulatory pressures, management resulted in fewer visits, fewer drug use and similar pressures.7 Further evidence is needed in typical primary care settings to study the effects of the use of ambulatory pressures and other alternatives, both in initiation of treatment and during surveillance. Other critical points should also be considered when assessing BP profiles in hospitalized patients: the frequent absence of standardized operating protocols for BP measurement and the inconsistent quality of BP measurements taken and the potential inaccuracy of some BP measurement instruments [8-11]. In addition, comorbidities are common in the elderly (for example. B malnutrition, dehydration and heart failure) associated with age-related biological changes may influence the reproducibility of BP measurements .