Jeanne Françoise Kayibanda

How Accurate Are Home Blood Pressure Devices in Use? A Cross-Sectional Study

Background Out of office blood pressure measurements, using either home monitors or 24 hour ambulatory monitoring, is widely recommended for management of hypertension. Though validation protocols, meant to be used by manufacturers, exist for blood pressure monitors, there is scant data in the literature about the accuracy of home blood pressure monitors in actual clinical practice. We performed a chart review in the blood pressure assessment clinic at a tertiary care centre. Methods We assessed the accuracy of home blood pressure monitors used by patients seen in the nephrology clinic in Ottawa between the years 2011 to 2014. We recorded patient demographics and clinical data, including the blood pressure measurements, arm circumference and the manufacturer of the home blood pressure monitor. The average of BP measurements performed with the home blood pressure monitor, were compared to those with the mercury sphygmomanometer. We defined accuracy based on a difference of 5 mm Hg in the blood pressure values between the home monitor and mercury sphygmomanometer readings. The two methods were compared using a Bland-Altman plot and a student’s t-test. Results The study included 210 patients. The mean age of the study population was 67 years and 61% was men. The average mid-arm circumference was 32.2 cms. 30% and 32% of the home BP monitors reported a mean systolic and diastolic BP values, respectively, different from the mercury measurements by 5 mm Hg or more. There was no significant difference between the monitors that were accurate versus those that were not when grouped according to the patient characteristics, cuff size or the brand of the home monitor. Conclusions An important proportion of home blood pressure monitors used by patients seen in our nephrology clinic were inaccurate. A re-validation of the accuracy and safety of the devices already in use is prudent before relying on these measurements for clinical decisions.

Does intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography cause acute kidney injury? Protocol of a systematic review of the evidence.

BackgroundContrast-induced acute kidney injury is a common cause of iatrogenic acute kidney injury (AKI). Most of the published estimates of AKI after contrast use originate from the cardiac catheterization literature despite contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans being the more common setting for contrast use. This systematic review aims to summarize the current evidence about (1)the risk of AKI following intravenous (IV) contrast-enhanced CT scans and(2) the risk of clinical outcomes (i.e. death, hospitalization and need for renal replacement therapy) due to IV contrast-enhanced CT scans.Methods/DesignA systematic literature search for published studies will be performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and The COCHRANE Library databases. Unpublished studies will be identified by searching through grey literature. No language restriction will be applied.The review will consider all studies that have examined the association between IV contrast media and AKI. To be selected, the study should include two arms: one group of exposed patients who received IV contrast material before CT scans and one group of unexposed group who did not receive contrast material before CT scans. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts obtained from electronic databases, extract data and will assess the quality of the studies selected using the Cochranes ‘Risk of Bias’ assessment tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A random-effects meta-analysis will be performed if there is no remarkable heterogeneity between studies.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide synthesis of current evidence around the effect of IV contrast material on AKI and other clinical outcomes. Results will be helpful for making evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for clinical and radiologic settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42013003799.

Erratum: Oral salt and water versus intravenous saline for the prevention of acute kidney injury following contrast-enhanced computed tomography: study protocol for a pilot randomized trial Salmonella blood stream infections in a tertiary care setting in Ghana.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s40697-015-0048-7.].