Credits Earned (2024) Crédits obtenus

Redeem Prepaid Membership

Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#9 Home in the Range – Home Blood Pressure Monitoring

Is home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) helpful in the management of adult hypertension?

HBPM appears to provide some advantages over office BP assessment and may be a helpful addition for willing patients.

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

Multiple meta-analyses1-4 have assessed the effect of HBPM on the management of hypertension.
  • One meta-analysis1 of 26 studies (5,651 patients) comparing HBPM versus usual care.
    • At six months, systolic BP and diastolic BP improved by 3.9/2.4 mmHg.
      • Not statistically significant at 12 months and beyond.
    • No difference in quality of life.
    • Medication adherence was statistically significantly improved in three trials, but not in five others.
    • No trials have looked into hard cardiovascular outcomes.
  • European,5 US6 and Canadian7 guidelines all recommend HBPM.
  • Home and office-based BP monitoring perform similarly overall in diagnosing hypertension.8
    • The threshold for hypertension with HBPM is ≥135/85 mmHg.
  • Disagreement between OBP and HBPM:5,6
    • “White coat hypertension”:
      • Office BP ≥140/90 mmHg and HBPM <135/85 mmHg.
      • Occurs in <20%.
      • Prognosis may be modestly worse than being normotensive.
    • “Masked hypertension”:
      • Office BP <140/90 mmHg but HBPM ≥135/85 mmHg.
      • Occurs in <15%.
      • Prognosis may be similar to being hypertensive.
    • If available, consider ambulatory BP to help sort these out.
      • Ambulatory BP should probably be given precedent as it has the larger volume of outcome data.
      • If ambulatory BP disagrees with HBPM and office BP, repeat testing and followup should be considered as reproducibility is low in white coat and masked hypertension.
    • HBPM is superior to office BP measurements in predicting cardiovascular risk.9
    • HBP is generally lower than office BP (averaging 7 mmHg systolic/5 mmHg diastolic lower).10 The difference:
      • Increases with age and in men (for systolic, not diastolic).
      • Decreases in treated subjects.
        • Interventions to improve BP (e.g. medications) result in smaller reductions in HBPM than OBP (in one systematic review,4 medications reduced OBP by 20.1/13.6 mmHg and HBPM 13.9/9.1 mmHg).
    • Approach:5-7
      • Oscillometric device approved by the Canadian Hypertension Society. For details on HBPM including video and written instructions, encourage patients to consult For a list of approved devices (cost $80-130) see:
        • Arm-only (not wrist or finger) models.
        • Educate patients to proper measurement technique.
        • Preferable if device stores readings.
        • Most recommend monitoring as duplicate readings twice daily for seven days (and discard first day)
        • HBPM may not work well in patients with arrhythmia.
July 13 2016 by Ricky

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • G. Michael Allan
  • Kathleen Hegan B.Sc.Hon (medical student)

1. Uhlig K, Patel K, Ip S, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 159:185-94.

2. Agarwal R, Bills JE, Hecht TJW, et al. Hypertension. 2011; 57(1):29-38.

3. Glynn LG, Murphy AW, Smith SM, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (3):CD005182.

4. Bray EP, Holder R, Mant J, et al. Ann Med. 2010; 42:371-86.

5. Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R, et al. J Hum Hypertens. 2010; 24:779-85.

6. Pickering TG, Houston Miller N, Ogedegbe G, et al. Hypertension. 2008; 52:1-9.

7. Hackam DG, Quinn RR, Ravani P, et al. Can J Cardiol. 2013; 29:528-42.

8. Hodgkinson J, Mant J, Martin U, et al. BMJ. 2011; 342:d3621.

9. Ward AM, Takahashi O, Stevens R, et al. J Hypertens. 2012; 30:449-56.

10. Verberk WJ, Kroon AA, Kessels AGH, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46:743-51.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.

Most recent review: 13/07/2016

By: Ricky D Turgeon BSc(Pharm) ACPR PharmD


Evidence Updated: No new evidence; Bottom Line: No change.

Learning at a glance
Yearly credits
Acquired ()
Your content by topic
Cardiology Dermatology Emergency
My Bookmarks