Objective: To compare the reproducibility of ambulatory and office blo
od pressure readings in established hypertensive subjects when studies
are repeated at extended time intervals. Subjects: Twenty-five hypert
ensive patients (office diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal
to 90 mmHg) who were off antihypertensive therapy for at least 4 week
s and had repeat office and ambulatory blood pressures at least 3 mont
hs apart under similar study conditions. Methods: On the same day, pat
ients underwent office blood pressure readings measured by mercury col
umn sphygmomanometry and then by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was done for 24 h, and awake and
sleep periods were divided according to a diary kept by each patient.
A second study was performed in an identical manner at a mean +/- SD
interval of 23 +/- 24 months (range 3-80, median 15). The agreement be
tween studies was assessed by correlation coefficients, coefficients o
f variation and standard deviation of the differences (SDD). Results:
There were no significant differences in office, 24-h, awake and sleep
mean blood pressures between the two studies. Mean 24-h systolic and
diastolic blood pressures were 16 and 14 mmHg lower, respectively, tha
n office blood pressure values. Correlation coefficients were signific
antly higher for 24-h ambulatory blood pressure than office blood pres
sure, whereas the SDD between visits was significantly lower for 24-h
ambulatory blood pressure than office blood pressure. Conclusions: The
se data demonstrate that long-term reproducibility of ambulatory blood
pressure is superior to that for office measurement. One implication
of this finding is that, in long-term clinical pharmacology trials uti
lizing ambulatory blood pressure, fewer subjects would be required tha
n for studies that used office blood pressure end-points.