Abstract 57: Optimizing the Number of Measurements Needed for Reliable Home Blood Pressure Assessment: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study

F Frances Wang (Beth Israel Deaconess Med Center, Diamond Bar, California, United States) H Hannah Col (BIDMC, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States) F Fredrick Larbi (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Ctr, Boston, Massachusetts, United States) D Dhrumil Patil M Md Marufuzzaman Khan (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Cente, Brookline, Massachusetts, United States) L Long Ngo J Jennifer Cluett (BIDMC-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States) E Elizabeth Selvin (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore) L Lynne Wagenknecht (Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States) T Timothy Hughes B B Gwen Windham (UMMC, The MIND Center, Jackson, Mississippi, United States) T Thomas Mosley (UNIV MS MEDICAL CTR, Jackson, Mississippi, United States) P Pamela Lutsey (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) K Kimberly Ring (UNC - Biostatistics, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States) A Arielle Valint (UNC- Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States) M Mingyu Zhang (Hubei Key Laboratory of Electrochemical Power Sources, College of Chemistry and Molecular Sciences) S Stephen Juraschek (BIDMC-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States)

Abstract

Introduction: The 2025 AHA/ACC High Blood Pressure (BP) Guidelines recommend home BP monitoring (HBPM) to confirm hypertension diagnosis, guide therapy, and support long-term control. However, the optimal number of HBPM measurements needed for accurate and reliable assessment is not established. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that repeated HBPM, when based on multiple readings per session, would plateau within 3 days. Methods: At ARIC study visit 10 (2021-23) participants completed 8 days of HBPM with two daily sessions (morning and evening) each consisting of 3 readings taken at 1-minute intervals after 5-minutes of rest using an Omron Series 10 BP7450 monitor. We assessed agreement between the 8-day mean (reference) and shorter protocols (fewer days, <3 readings per session, or only morning or evening measurements) using concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and the proportion of participants with a <10 mm Hg difference from the reference. We then evaluated whether the number of days to reach BP stability (average systolic BP [SBP] and diastolic BP [DBP] <5 mm Hg from reference) differed by age, sex, and anti-hypertensive medication use. Results: Among 812 participants (median age 83 years, 24% Black adults, 40% male), 29% had normal BP during the study visit, and 84% were on anti-hypertensive medications ( Table ). Median SBP and DBP remained within a 2 mm Hg range across each day of the 8-day protocol. Using cumulative averages, the largest improvement in agreement occurred when extending the averaging window from 1 to 2 days, with the CCC increasing for SBP from 0.856 (95% CI: 0.837, 0.873) to 0.929 (0.919, 0.937) and for DBP from 0.846 (0.826, 0.864) to 0.929 (0.919, 0.938) ( Figure 1 ). With 3 days of HBPM, the CCC exceeded 0.95 and the proportion of participants within 10 mm Hg difference achieved ≥97% for both SBP and DBP. Beyond 4 days, agreement metrics plateaued. Averaging ≥2 readings per session, including both morning and evening measurements, yielded better agreement than using a single reading or only one timepoint per day. On average, using 3 readings per session, BP stabilized in 1.28 (1.24, 1.33) days, with results similar within subgroups ( Figure 2 ). Conclusions: In this community-based cohort of very old adults, HBPM provided stable BP estimates within 2-3 days (morning and evening sessions with 2-3 readings each). These findings support shorter HBPM protocols to guide hypertension management while reducing burden in older adults.

Article Details

Journal Circulation
Volume / Issue Vol. 153, Issue Suppl_1
Published March 24, 2026
ISSN 0009-7322
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Circulation

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0009-7322 Health Sciences

Authors (17)

F

Frances Wang

Beth Israel Deaconess Med Center, Diamond Bar, California, United States

H

Hannah Col

BIDMC, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

F

Fredrick Larbi

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Ctr, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

D

Dhrumil Patil

M

Md Marufuzzaman Khan

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Cente, Brookline, Massachusetts, United States

L

Long Ngo

J

Jennifer Cluett

BIDMC-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States

E

Elizabeth Selvin

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore

L

Lynne Wagenknecht

Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States

T

Timothy Hughes

B

B Gwen Windham

UMMC, The MIND Center, Jackson, Mississippi, United States

T

Thomas Mosley

UNIV MS MEDICAL CTR, Jackson, Mississippi, United States

P

Pamela Lutsey

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

K

Kimberly Ring

UNC - Biostatistics, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States

A

Arielle Valint

UNC- Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States

M

Mingyu Zhang

Hubei Key Laboratory of Electrochemical Power Sources, College of Chemistry and Molecular Sciences

S

Stephen Juraschek

BIDMC-Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States