Back to Journals » Integrated Blood Pressure Control » Volume 8

Does home blood pressure monitoring improve patient outcomes? A systematic review comparing home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure control and patient outcomes

Authors Breaux-Shropshire T, Judd E, Vucovich L, Shropshire T, Singh S

Received 20 December 2014

Accepted for publication 1 April 2015

Published 3 July 2015 Volume 2015:8 Pages 43—49


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Steven Atlas

Tonya L Breaux-Shropshire,1,2 Eric Judd,1 Lee A Vucovich,3 Toneyell S Shropshire,4 Sonal Singh5

1Vascular Biology and Hypertension Program, Cardiovascular Disease, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; 2Veterans Administration, Birmingham, AL, USA; 3Lister Hill Library, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA; 4Department of Physical Therapy, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA; 5Department of Medicine, John Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Objective: Our objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) on blood pressure (BP) control and patient outcomes.
Design: A systematic review was conducted. We also appraised the methodological quality of studies.
Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL).
Inclusion criteria: Randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, observational studies, and case-control studies published in English from any year to present that describe HBPM and 24-hour ABPM and report on systolic and/or diastolic BP and/or heart attack, stroke, kidney failure and/or all-cause mortality for adult patients. Due to the nature of the question, studies with only untreated patients were not considered.
Results: Of 1,742 titles and abstractions independently reviewed by two reviewers, 137 studies met predetermined criteria for evaluation. Nineteen studies were identified as relevant and included in the paper. The common themes were that HBPM and ABPM correlated with cardiovascular events and mortality, and targeting HBPM or ABPM resulted in similar outcomes. Associations between BP measurement type and mortality differed by study population. Both the low sensitivity of office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) to detect optimal BP control by ABPM and the added association of HBPM with cardiovascular mortality supported the routine use of HBPM in clinical practice. There was insufficient data to determine the benefit of using HBPM as a measurement standard for BP control.
Conclusion: HBPM encourages patient-centered care and improves BP control and patient outcomes. Given the limited number of studies with both HBPM and ABPM, these measurement types should be incorporated into the design of randomized clinical trials within hypertensive populations.

Keywords: ABPM, HBPM, OBPM, randomized control trials

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]