: Atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexists with hypertension in the elderly and multiplies the risk of stroke and death. Blood pressure (BP) measurement in patients with AF is difficult and uncertain and has been a classic exclusion criterion in hypertension clinical trials leading to limited research data. This article reviews the evidence on the accuracy of BP measurement in AF performed using different methods (office, ambulatory, home) and devices (auscultatory, oscillometric) and its clinical relevance in predicting cardiovascular damage. The current evidence suggests the following: (i) Interobserver and intra-observer variation in auscultatory BP measurement is increased in AF because of increased beat-to-beat BP variability and triplicate measurement is required; (ii) Data from validation studies of automated electronic BP monitors in AF are limited and methodologically heterogeneous and suggest reasonable accuracy in measuring SBP and a small yet consistent overestimation of DBP; (iii) 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring is feasible in AF, with similar proportion of errors as in individuals without AF; (iv) both auscultatory and automated oscillometric BP measurements appear to be clinically relevant in AF, providing similar associations with intra-arterial BP measurements and with indices of preclinical cardiac damage as in patients without AF, and predict cardiovascular events and death; (v) Screening for AF in the elderly using an AF-specific algorithm during routine automated office, home or ambulatory BP measurement has high diagnostic accuracy. In conclusion, in AF patients, BP measurement is important, reliable, and clinically relevant and should not be neglected in clinical research and in practice.

In the last three decades protocols for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices have been developed by the US Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, the British Hypertension Society, the German Hypertension League, the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on blood pressure Monitoring and the International Organization for Standardization. The European Society of Hypertension International Protocol required much smaller sample size than the other protocols, aiming to reduce the time, resources and cost of validation studies and thereby increase the number of validated devices. Given its specifications, the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol was adequate for 'high- and low-accuracy' devices, yet assessment of 'moderate accuracy' devices had high uncertainty with resultant high rate of device failure. Thus, devices validated using the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol should be considered to be as accurate as those validated with the previous Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation or British Hypertension Society protocols. However, the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol did not allow subgroup evaluation (arm sizes, special populations, etc). The mission of the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol to promote the concept of validation has been well achieved, as almost double studies have been published using it than all the other protocols together. However, the maintenance of different validation protocols is confusing and therefore experts from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, European Society of Hypertension International Protocol and International Organization for Standardization have now developed the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018) as the recommended 21st-century procedure for worldwide application. The European Society of Hypertension Working Group has published a practical guide for using the Universal Standard. It is in the interests of all scientific bodies to propagate the Universal Standard and ensure its wide implementation.

Body-mass index (BMI) has increased steadily in most countries in parallel with a rise in the proportion of the population who live in cities

Raised blood pressure is the biggest single risk factor responsible for mortality worldwide. Despite this, the majority of people with hypertension are unaware of having it, are untreated, or are on treatment but uncontrolled. May Measurement Month is a global campaign initiated by the International Society of Hypertension with the aim of raising awareness of high blood pressure. In the first year of the campaign in 2017, over 1.2 million people were screened in 80 countries across the world, finding over 100 000 people with hypertension who were not on treatment and over 150 000 people on anti-hypertensive treatment who were not controlled. The individual national results from 39 countries are presented in this supplement. In this article, we discuss the background to the campaign, along with some of the logistical and methodological challenges that were faced in setting up the campaign, and in collecting and analysing the data from such a large cross-sectional study. With the lessons learned from the 2017 campaign, the campaign was repeated in 2018 and is to be repeated again in 2019.

: High blood pressure (BP) is a highly prevalent modifiable cause of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and death. Accurate BP measurement is critical, given that a 5-mmHg measurement error may lead to incorrect hypertension status classification in 84 million individuals worldwide. This position statement summarizes procedures for optimizing observer performance in clinic BP measurement, with special attention given to low-to-middle-income settings, where resource limitations, heavy workloads, time constraints, and lack of electrical power make measurement more challenging. Many measurement errors can be minimized by appropriate patient preparation and standardized techniques. Validated semi-automated/automated upper arm cuff devices should be used instead of auscultation to simplify measurement and prevent observer error. Task sharing, creating a dedicated measurement workstation, and using semi-automated or solar-charged devices may help. Ensuring observer training, and periodic re-training, is critical. Low-cost, easily accessible certification programs should be considered to facilitate best BP measurement practice.

In September 2017, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a Controversies Conference titled Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). The purpose of the meeting was to consider which recommendations from the 2012 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in CKD should be reevaluated based on new evidence from clinical trials. Participants included a multidisciplinary panel of clinical and scientific experts. Discussions focused on the optimal means for measuring blood pressure (BP) as well as managing BP in CKD patients. Consistent with the 2012 Guideline, the conference did not address BP management in patients on maintenance dialysis.

: In the past 30 years, several organizations have developed protocols for clinical validation of blood pressure measuring devices. An international initiative was recently launched by the US Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring (ESH) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), aiming to reach consensus on a universal AAMI/ESH/ISO validation standard. The purpose of this statement by the ESH Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring is to provide practical guidance for investigators performing validation studies according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard (ISO 81060-2:2018), to ensure that its stipulations are meticulously implemented and data are fully reported. Thus, this statement provides: a list of key recommendations for validation studies of intermittent non-invasive automated blood pressure measuring devices according to the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard; practical stepwise guidance for researchers performing these validation studies; a checklist for authors and reviewers of such studies; an example of a complete validation study report.

The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Restricted use of mercury devices, increased use of oscillometric devices, discrepancies between clinic and out-of-clinic BP, and concerns about measurement error with manual BP measurement techniques have resulted in uncertainty for clinicians and researchers. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health convened a working group of clinicians and researchers in October 2017 to review data on BP assessment among adults in clinical practice and clinic-based research. In this report, the authors review the topics discussed during a 2-day meeting including the current state of knowledge on BP assessment in clinical practice and clinic-based research, knowledge gaps pertaining to current BP assessment methods, research and clinical needs to improve BP assessment, and the strengths and limitations of using BP obtained in clinical practice for research and quality improvement activities.

There is increasing interest in unattended automated office blood pressure (OBP) measurement, which gives lower blood pressure values than the conventional auscultatory OBP. Whether unattended automated OBP differs from standardized attended automated OBP performed using the same device and measurement protocol remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies (aggregate data) comparing unattended vs attended automated OBP using the same device and measurement protocol (conditions, number of measurements, visits) was performed. Ten eligible studies (n = 1004, weighted age 60.8 ± 4.2 [SD] years, 55% males) were analyzed. Unattended OBP (pooled systolic/diastolic 133.9 [95% CI: 129.7, 138]/80.6 [95% CI: 77, 84.2] mm Hg) did not differ from attended OBP (135.3 [95% CI: 130.9, 139.6]/81 [95% CI: 77.6, 84.3] mm Hg); pooled systolic OBP difference -1.3, 95% CI: -4.3, 1.7 mm Hg and diastolic -0.4, 95% CI: -1.2, 0.3 mm Hg. Nine of ten studies achieved high quality score and no publication bias was identified. Meta-regression analysis did not reveal any effect of age, gender, or attended systolic OBP on the unattended-attended systolic OBP difference (P = NS for all). However, there was a trend toward higher attended than unattended OBP at higher OBP levels. These data suggest that, when the same device and measurement protocol are used, attended automated OBP provides similar blood pressure values as unattended automated OBP. Although unattended automated OBP is theoretically advantageous as it ensures that standardized conditions and measurement protocol are used, attended automated OBP, if carefully performed, appears to be a reasonable and practical alternative.

The measurement of blood pressure in the office (OBP) remains the basis for hypertension diagnosis and management for more than half a century. Despite the increasing use of out-of-office blood pressure measurement using home and less so ambulatory monitoring and their endorsement by hypertension societies, at present and for some time to come it is likely that in many people the diagnosis and management of hypertension will be based on OBP measurement alone. OBP measurement is a very variable method affected by multiple factors, which have major impact on the OBP level, reproducibility and prognostic ability. Thus, there are several types of OBP measurement, depending on the device type, conditions, observer's presence and the number of readings. The 4 main OBP types are: Type I: Auscultatory OBP in clinical practice; Type II: Automated attended OBP in clinical practice; Type III: Research setting OBP; Type IV: Unattended automated OBP. These OBP types have different standardization level, different reproducibility, different clinical relevance and different thresholds for hypertension diagnosis. Unless the methodological details of OBP measurement are reported, any conclusions based on such measurements in clinical research and in practice are questionable.

: Studies using ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring have shown that BP during night-time sleep is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular outcomes than daytime ambulatory or conventional office BP. However, night-time ambulatory BP recordings may interfere with sleep quality because of the device cuff inflation and frequency of measurements. Hence, there is an unmet need for obtaining high quality BP values during sleep. In the last two decades, technological development of home BP devices enabled automated BP measurements during night-time. Preliminary data suggest that nocturnal home BP measurements yield similar BP values and show good agreement in detecting nondippers when compared with ambulatory BP monitoring. Thus, nocturnal home BP measurements might be a reliable and practical alternative to ambulatory BP monitoring to evaluate BP during sleep. As the use of home BP devices is widespread, well accepted by users and has relatively low cost, it may prove to be more feasible and widely available for routine clinical assessment of nocturnal BP. At present, however, data on the prognostic relevance of nocturnal BP measured by home devices, the optimal measurement schedule, and other methodological issues are lacking and await further investigation. This article offers a systematic review of the current evidence on nocturnal home BP, highlights the remaining research questions, and provides preliminary recommendations for application of this novel approach in BP management.