Level of blood pressure control in a hypertensive population when measurements are performed outside the clinical setting
- PMID: 19130417
Level of blood pressure control in a hypertensive population when measurements are performed outside the clinical setting
Abstract
Background: To determine whether the number of optimally controlled hypertensive patients is higher using self-measurement of blood pressure at home and ambulatory monitoring, compared to using conventional blood pressure measurements at the doctor's office.
Method: An observational, cross-sectional, multicentre, descriptive study of a random sample of 237 primary health care patients, known to be hypertensive, from Badajoz (Spain). Blood pressure was measured at the doctor's office and by self-measurement at home. Those patients showing good control by self-measurement were subjected to 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. Optimal control was understood as blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg when measured at the doctor's office, and < 135/85 mm Hg when self-measured at home and by daytime ambulatory monitoring.
Results: Mean systolic/diastolic measurements at the doctor's office and by self-measurement were 145.6/83.9 and 134.0/78.7 mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.000). In the population optimally controlled by self-measurement and who subsequently received ambulatory monitoring, the mean blood pressure was 121.8/73.4 and 125.6/76.2 mm Hg, respectively (p = 0.002; p < 0.000). When measured at the doctor's office blood pressure was controlled in about 29.5% (95% CI 23.7-35.3%) of patients, in 38% when self-measured (95% CI 31.4-44.2%; p < 0.000), and in 24.5% when it was confirmed through ambulatory monitoring (95% CI 15.4-33.6%). Sensitivity and positive predictive values of the office measurements for the detection of patients who were well-controlled by self-measurement were 50% and 64.3%, respectively, and 53.4% and 73.8% as regards ambulatory monitoring.
Conclusions: A higher level of control is achieved with self-measurement at home not confirmed by ambulatory monitoring. Therefore, the white coat effect does not seem to influence the percentage of well-controlled patients detected at the doctor's office. Office blood pressure does not appear to be useful in distinguishing which individual patients are optimally controlled.
Similar articles
-
[Arterial hypertension difficult to control in the elderly patient. The significance of the "white coat effect"].Rev Port Cardiol. 1999 Oct;18(10):897-906. Rev Port Cardiol. 1999. PMID: 10590654 Portuguese.
-
Self-measured home blood pressure in predicting ambulatory hypertension.Am J Hypertens. 2004 Nov;17(11 Pt 1):1017-22. doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.06.015. Am J Hypertens. 2004. PMID: 15533727
-
Blood pressure levels, risk factors and antihypertensive treatments: lessons from the SHEAF study.J Hum Hypertens. 2001 Dec;15(12):841-8. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001280. J Hum Hypertens. 2001. PMID: 11773986
-
Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy: discrepancies between office and ambulatory recorded blood pressure.J Hypertens Suppl. 1991 Dec;9(3):S53-6. J Hypertens Suppl. 1991. PMID: 1798001 Review.
-
Ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure versus self-measured blood pressure in pharmacologic trials.J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1994;24 Suppl 2:S20-5. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1994. PMID: 7898091 Review.
Cited by
-
Does home blood pressure monitoring improve patient outcomes? A systematic review comparing home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure control and patient outcomes.Integr Blood Press Control. 2015 Jul 3;8:43-9. doi: 10.2147/IBPC.S49205. eCollection 2015. Integr Blood Press Control. 2015. PMID: 26170715 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Out-of-office blood pressure: from measurement to control.Integr Blood Press Control. 2012;5:27-34. doi: 10.2147/IBPC.S30409. Epub 2012 May 16. Integr Blood Press Control. 2012. PMID: 22654523 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical