Time-weighted vs. conventional quantification of 24-h average systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure

Background Conventional calculation of mean 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP), SBP and DBP based on the average of all BP readings disregards the fact that a larger number of measurements is usually scheduled during the daytime than at night, an imbalance possibly leading to an overestimation of 24-h average BP. The aim of our study was to quantify this possible bias and to explore its determinants.Methods Four hundred and fifty untreated individuals were subdivided into three groups (150 individuals each) with three different ambulatory blood pressure measurement schedules for day/night: group I, four (day)/two (night) readings/h; group II, four (day)/three (night) readings/h; and group III, with BP readings every 30 min throughout 24 h. Hourly and 24-h averages were computed. The conventional 24-h averages of all SBP and DBP values were compared with the averages of hourly SBP and DBP mean values (time-weighted quantification). The difference between 24-h conventional and 24-h time-weighted BP was computed in each group and related to the degree of nocturnal BP dip and to the ratio between the number of readings of day and night.Result In the three groups, 24-h conventional and 24-h time-weighted BP values were highly correlated (r > 0.99), 24-h conventional SBP and DBP being significantly higher (P < 0.01) than the corresponding 24-h time-weighted values in groups I and II but not in group III (Bland-Altman analysis). The bias magnitude was related to the day/night ratio in number of readings and to nocturnal BP dip in groups I and II (P < 0.01) but not in group III.Conclusion The higher number of readings/h during daytime leads to an overestimation of conventional 24-h average BP, particularly in individuals with preserved nocturnal BP dipping. This can be avoided either by scheduling the same number of readings/h throughout 24 h or by performing a time-weighted quantification of 24-h BP. The clinical implications of these different approaches deserve further investigation. J Hypertens 28:459-464 (c) 2010 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.