BackgroundBecause ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is not available everywhere, the objective of the study was to determine whether nurse-measured blood pressure could be an acceptable substitute to ABPM.MethodsWe analyzed the data of 2385 consecutive patients referred to our hypertension clinic for the performance of ABPM. Before ambulatory monitoring was performed, a nurse-measured BP was obtained three times using a Y-tube connecting the sphygmomanometer and the recorder. We compared the mean value of the three nurse-measured blood pressures with that of the 12 h daytime ambulatory monitoring, considered as the reference.ResultsThe difference between the nurse-measured and the ambulatory blood pressure was small but statistically significant, indicating that nurse-measured blood pressure tends to overestimate both diastolic and systolic blood pressure. The difference between the nurse blood pressure and ABPM was greater among treated hypertensive patients than untreated patients. To diagnose hypertension, defined as a blood pressure of over 140/90 mmHg by ABPM, the positive predictive value of the nurse blood pressure was 0.81 and the negative predictive value 0.63. However, these predictive values could be improved with less stringent cut-off values of blood pressure. Thus, for a diastolic blood pressure above 100 mmHg, the positive predictive value of nurse blood pressure was 0.55 and the negative predictive value 0.91. These figures were relatively similar for previously treated and untreated patients.ConclusionNurse blood pressure is less accurate than ABPM in diagnosing hypertension, defined as a blood pressure of over 140/90 mmHg. It could, however, be an acceptable substitute, especially to exclude people who do not need to be treated, in situations where lower resources require a less rigorous definition of hypertension.