Cuffless 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring-guided antihypertensive titration in real-world clinical practice: a prospective non-randomized study
In brief
Cuffless monitoring-guided care was linked to 7 mmHg lower 24-hour blood pressure
In a non-randomized study of adults with uncontrolled hypertension, cuffless 24-hour monitoring-guided medication titration was associated with systolic blood pressure about 7 mmHg lower at six months than usual care. Office blood pressure did not differ significantly, and adverse events were more frequent per participant in the monitoring group; a randomized trial is needed to confirm the benefit.
- Journal
- Clinical hypertension (Q1)
- Published
- 1 October 2026
- Study design
- Non-randomized / quasi-experimental trial
- Evidence level
- Level 2, Moderate (CEBM 2b)
- Authors
- Jung-Joon Cha, Mi-Na Kim, So Ree Kim, Jae Hyoung Park, Hyung Joon Joo, Cheol Woong Yu
- PMID
- 42846709
- DOI
- 10.5646/ch.2026.32.e42
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Internal Medicine (top studies of the week, 11 October 2026): Cuffless ABPM‑guided antihypertensive titration – management study
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is the reference standard for diagnosing hypertension and assessing treatment response, but routine use remains limited by conventional cuff-based devices. We compared 6-month ambulatory blood pressure (BP) between cuffless 24-hour ABPM-guided titration and usual care in outpatient hypertension management. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, open-label, non-randomized prospective study of adults with uncontrolled hypertension between March and November 2025. Participants were assigned by the treating physician, without randomization, to CART BP pro-guided titration (CART BP arm, n = 67) or usual care (Control arm, n = 179). The primary endpoint was 24-hour mean systolic BP at 6 months, analyzed using analysis of covariance with 10 prespecified covariates. Sensitivity analyses addressed measured confounding, missing outcomes, and visit frequency. RESULTS: Among 162 participants with a valid 6-month ABPM recording, the adjusted between-group difference in 24-hour systolic BP was -7.35 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI], -12.03 to -2.67 mmHg; P < 0.01), favoring the CART BP arm. Sensitivity analyses for measured confounding, missing outcomes, and visit frequency yielded similar estimates. In exploratory phenotype-specific comparisons, the controlled-BP phenotype was more prevalent in the CART BP arm (65.8% vs. 36.3%; P < 0.01), and masked hypertension was less prevalent (5.3% vs. 20.2%; P = 0.04). Adjusted office systolic BP differed by -3.14 mmHg (95% CI, -9.25 to 2.96; P = 0.31). Adverse events were more frequent per participant (20.0% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.02); exposure-adjusted incidence rate ratios were 1.78 (95% CI, 0.87 to 3.65) per participant-visit and 2.75 (95% CI, 1.35 to 5.61) per person-year. CONCLUSIONS: In this non-randomized study, a care pathway incorporating cuffless 24-hour ABPM was associated with lower 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP at 6 months compared with usual care, whereas office systolic BP did not differ significantly between arms. Given the non-randomized design, these findings are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in a randomized trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT07454148.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.