Search

We present a case of a pregnant woman with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who was diagnosed with asymptomatic complete heart block (CHB) during pregnancy. To evaluate possible risks and benefits of pacemaker (PM) implantation, a multidisciplinary counselling board was held. Its recommendation was to perform PM implantation to prevent intra-uterine growth restriction from insufficient cardiac output using a fluoroscopic protective shield. The procedure was performed without complications and established permanent pacing on onwards ECG examinations. The patient subsequently gave birth to a healthy newborn. After a retrospective clinical case evaluation and review of relevant literature, a presumptive association between CHB and the primary diagnosis was proposed. Above that, pregnant women with SLE who develop hypertension are commonly treated with methyldopa, which may cause conduction abnormalities. Clinical recommendations for young female patients expecting pregnancy are lacking in this area. Careful diagnostic and treatment approaches should be used in the management of possible SLE-related complications in women of child-bearing age, focusing on preventable events.

Aims: Unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) has attracted more attention since SPRINT trial had been published. However, its long-term relationship to attended office blood pressure (AuscOBP) is not known. Material and methods: Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in four Czech academic hypertension centers. All subjects attended four clinical visits three months apart. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; AuscOBP was measured three times with auscultatory method by the physician. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed within one week from the second clinical visit. Results: Data on 112 subjects aged 65.6 ± 10.8 years with mean AuscOBP 128.2 ± 12.2/78.5 ± 10.3 mm Hg are reported. Across the four clinical visits, the uAutoOBP was by 10.1/3.7 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP and the mean difference was similar during all four visits (P≥.061). Both uAutoOBP and AuscOBP had similar intra-individual variability during study follow-up as demonstrated by similar intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, for systolic ICC = 0.50, for diastolic ICC = 0.72). However, the intra-individual variability of the systolic AuscOBP and uAutoOBP difference was high as demonstrated by low ICCs for absolute (ICC = 0.17 [95%CI, 0.09 – 0.25]) and low κ coefficients for categorized differences (κ ≤ 0.16). The main determinant of AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was AuscOBP level. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM. Conclusions: Although mean AuscOBP-uAutoOBP differences were relatively similar across the four clinical visits, intra-individual variability of this difference was high. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference was poor tool to identify hypertension control categories defined on the basis of AuscOBP and ABPM. Therefore, uAutoOBP cannot be used as a replacement for ABPM.

Aims: Unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) may eliminate white-coat effect. In the present study, we studied its relationships to attended office blood pressure (BP) and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Material and methods: Stable treated hypertensive subjects were examined in four Czech academic hypertension centres. uAutoOBP was measured with the BP Tru device; attended BP was measured six times: three times with auscultatory method (AuscOBP) by the physician followed optionally by three oscillometric measurements (OscOBP). ABPM was performed within one week from the clinical visit. Results: Data on 172 subjects aged 63.7 ± 12.4 years with AuscOBP 127.6 ± 12.1/77.6 ± 10.0 mm Hg are reported. uAutoOBP was by 8.5 ± 9.0/3.0 ± 6.1 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP. The AuscOBP-uAutoOBP difference increased with the AuscOBP level and it did not depend on any other factor. OscOBP differed by 8.6 ± 8.6/1.9 ± 5.7 mm Hg from uAutoOBP. 24-hour mean BP was by 4.2 ± 12.1/3.5 ± 7.8 mm Hg lower than AuscOBP and by 4.3 ± 11.0/0.5 ± 6.9 mm Hg higher than uAutoOBP; the correlation coefficients of 24-hour mean BP with AuscOBP and with uAutoOBP did not differ (p for difference ≥.13). In the lowest BP group (systolic AuscOBP