Vol 25, No 3 (2021)
Review paper
Published online: 2021-05-18

open access

Page views 11498
Article views/downloads 555
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement — current evidence and the role in clinical practice

Marek Stopa12, Agnieszka Olszanecka1, Marek Rajzer1
Arterial Hypertension 2021;25(3):100-105.


Arterial hypertension is a leading preventable cardiovascular risk factor. The definition and thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension vary between European and American guidelines. That is mainly due to the widely known SPRINT trial in which unattended automated blood pressure measurements were used. This technique of blood pressure estimation requires a patient to be left alone in an office and then a programmed device measures blood pressure automatically. The absence of a health professional during the measurement helps to reduce or eliminate the “white coat” effect; therefore, values of blood pressure may be lower than in conventional office blood pressure measurements. There are premises that this technique can be a solid substitution for 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements and that it can predict hypertension-mediated organ damage more accurately than standard techniques. However, due to the many methods in which measurement can be carried out, no universal protocol exists. More research is needed to evaluate the usefulness of unattended automated office blood pressure measurements in clinical practice.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. O'Donnell MJ, Chin SL, Rangarajan S, et al. INTERSTROKE investigators. Global and regional effects of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with acute stroke in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE): a case-control study. Lancet. 2016; 388(10046): 761–775.
  2. GBD 2017 Risk Factor Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet . 2018; 392(10159): 1923–1994.
  3. Lawes CMM, Vander Hoorn S, Rodgers A, et al. International Society of Hypertension. Global burden of blood-pressure-related disease, 2001. Lancet. 2008; 371(9623): 1513–1518.
  4. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003; 289(19): 2560–2572.
  5. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, et al. Authors/Task Force Members:, ESC Scientific Document Group . 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(33): 3021–3104.
  6. Niklas A, Flotyńska A, Puch-Walczak A, et al. WOBASZ II investigators. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in the adult Polish population - Multi-center National Population Health Examination Surveys — WOBASZ studies. Arch Med Sci. 2018; 14(5): 951–961.
  7. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016; 387(10022): 957–967.
  8. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2018; 71(6): 1269–1324.
  9. Wright JT, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al. SPRINT Research Group. A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(22): 2103–2116.
  10. Ramli As, Halmey N, Teng Cl. White coat effect and white coat hypertension: one and the same? Malays Fam Physician. 2008; 3(3): 158–161.
  11. de la Sierra A, Vinyoles E, Banegas JR, et al. Prevalence and clinical characteristics of white-coat hypertension based on different definition criteria in untreated and treated patients. J Hypertens. 2017; 35(12): 2388–2394.
  12. Huang Y, Huang W, Mai W, et al. White-coat hypertension is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and total mortality. J Hypertens. 2017; 35(4): 677–688.
  13. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Cuspidi C, et al. Cardiovascular Risk Associated With White-Coat Hypertension: Pro Side of the Argument. Hypertension. 2017; 70(4): 668–675.
  14. Kjeldsen SE, Lund-Johansen P, Nilsson PM, et al. Unattended Blood Pressure Measurements in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial: Implications for Entry and Achieved Blood Pressure Values Compared With Other Trials. Hypertension. 2016; 67(5): 808–812.
  15. Asayama K, Ohkubo T, Rakugi H, et al. Japanese Society of Hypertension Working Group on the COmparison of Self-measured home, Automated unattended office and Conventional attended office blood pressure (COSAC) study. Comparison of blood pressure values-self-measured at home, measured at an unattended office, and measured at a conventional attended office. Hypertens Res. 2019; 42(11): 1726–1737.
  16. Salvetti M, Paini A, Bertacchini F, et al. Relationship between unattended and attended bp values and preclinical organ damage. J Hypertens. 2018; 36(Suppl 1): e112.
  17. Polonia J, Baptista C, Silva J, et al. Unattended versus two attended, ambulatory and central blood pressure measurements in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes. Blood Press. 2019; 28(2): 99–106.
  18. Stergiou GS, Efstathiou SP, Argyraki CK, et al. Clinic, home and ambulatory pulse pressure: comparison and reproducibility. J Hypertens. 2002; 20(10): 1987–1993.
  19. Al-Karkhi I, Al-Rubaiy R, Rosenqvist U, et al. Comparisons of automated blood pressures in a primary health care setting with self-measurements at the office and at home using the Omron i-C10 device. Blood Press Monit. 2015; 20(2): 98–103.
  20. Andreadis EA, Geladari CV, Angelopoulos ET, et al. Attended and Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurements Have Better Agreement With Ambulatory Monitoring Than Conventional Office Readings. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(8).
  21. Greiver M, White D, Kaplan DM, et al. Where should automated blood pressure measurements be taken? Pilot RCT of BpTRU measurements taken in private or nonprivate areas of a primary care office. Blood Press Monit. 2012; 17(3): 137–138.
  22. Alpert BS. Clinical evaluation of the Welch Allyn SureBP algorithm for automated blood pressure measurement. Blood Press Monit. 2007; 12(4): 215–218.
  23. Franssen PML, Imholz BPM. Evaluation of the Mobil-O-Graph new generation ABPM device using the ESH criteria. Blood Press Monit. 2010; 15(4): 229–231.
  24. Hong D, Su H, Li J, et al. The effect of physician presence on blood pressure. Blood Press Monit. 2012; 17(4): 145–148.
  25. Martin CA, Cameron JD, Chen SS, et al. Two hour glucose post loading: a biomarker of cardiovascular risk in isolated clinic hypertension. J Hypertens. 2011; 29(4): 749–757.
  26. Papademetriou V, Tsioufis C, Chung A, et al. Unobserved automated office BP is similar to other clinic BP measurements: A prospective randomized study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018; 20(10): 1411–1416.
  27. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A, et al. Comparison of two automated sphygmomanometers for use in the office setting. Blood Press Monit. 2009; 14(1): 45–47.
  28. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Optimum frequency of office blood pressure measurement using an automated sphygmomanometer. Blood Press Monit. 2008; 13(6): 333–338.
  29. Kronish IM, Edmondson D, Shimbo D, et al. A Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Common Office Blood Pressure Measurement Protocols. Am J Hypertens. 2018; 31(7): 827–834.
  30. Moore MN, Schultz MG, Nelson MR, et al. Identification of the Optimal Protocol for Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement Among Patients With Treated Hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2018; 31(3): 299–304.
  31. Colella TJF, Tahsinul A, Gatto H, et al. Antecedent rest may not be necessary for automated office blood pressure at lower treatment targets. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2018 [Epub ahead of print].
  32. Armstrong D, Matangi M, Brouillard D, et al. Automated office blood pressure - being alone and not location is what matters most. Blood Press Monit. 2015; 20(4): 204–208.
  33. Chambers LW, Kaczorowski J, O'Rielly S, et al. Comparison of blood pressure measurements using an automated blood pressure device in community pharmacies and family physicians' offices: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ Open. 2013; 1(1): E37–E42.
  34. Paini A, Bertacchini F, Stassaldi D, et al. Unattended versus attended blood pressure measurement: Mean values and determinants of the difference. Int J Cardiol. 2019; 274: 305–310.
  35. Myers M. Use of an automated blood pressurerecording device, the BpTRU, to reduce the“white coat effect” in routine practice. Am J Hypertens. 2003; 16(6): 494–497.
  36. Beckett L, Godwin M. The BpTRU automatic blood pressure monitor compared to 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the assessment of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2005; 5(1): 18.
  37. Myers MG, Godwin M, Dawes M, et al. Conventional versus automated measurement of blood pressure in the office (CAMBO) trial. Fam Pract. 2012; 29(4): 376–382.
  38. Kollias A, Stambolliu E, Kyriakoulis KG, et al. Unattended versus attended automated office blood pressure: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the same methodology for both methods. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2019; 21(2): 148–155.
  39. Roerecke M, Kaczorowski J, Myers MG. Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings With Other Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement for Identifying Patients With Possible Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179(3): 351–362.
  40. Schmieder RE. End organ damage in hypertension. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010; 107(49): 866–873.
  41. Campbell NRC, McKay DW, Conradson H, et al. Automated oscillometric blood pressure versus auscultatory blood pressure as a predictor of carotid intima-medial thickness in male firefighters. J Hum Hypertens. 2007; 21(7): 588–590.
  42. Palomba C, Donadio S, Canciello G, et al. Unattended Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement and Cardiac Target Organ Damage, A Pilot Study. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2019; 26(5): 383–389.
  43. Salvetti M, Paini A, Aggiusti C, et al. Unattended versus attended blood pressure measurement: Mean values and determinants of the difference. Int J Cardiol. 2019; 274(3): 305–310.
  44. Rabi D, McBrien K, Sapir-Pichhadze R, et al. Hypertension Canada’s 2020 Comprehensive Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, Risk Assessment, and Treatment of Hypertension in Adults and Children. Can J Cardiol. 2020; 36(5): 596–624.
  45. Tykarski A, Filipiak KJ, Januszewicz A, et al. Zasady postępowania w nadciśnieniu tętniczym — 2019 rok. Wytyczne Polskiego Towarzystwa Nadciśnienia Tętniczego. Nadciśnienie Tętnicze w Prakt. 2019; 5: 1–86.
  46. Unger T, Borghi C, Charchar F, et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2020; 75(6): 1334–1357.
  47. Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Parati G, et al. European Society of Hypertension Council and the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-of-office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens. 2021 [Epub ahead of print].