Dataset Information

Changes in home versus clinic blood pressure with antihypertensive treatments: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring is recommended for assessing the effects of antihypertensive treatment, but it is not clear how the treatment-induced changes in HBP compare with the changes in clinic blood pressure (CBP). We searched PubMed using the terms "home or self-measured blood pressure," and selected articles in which the changes in CBP and HBP (using the upper arm oscillometric method) induced by antihypertensive drugs were presented. We performed a systematic review of 30 articles published before March 2008 that included a total of 6794 subjects. As there was significant heterogeneity in most of the outcomes, a random effects model was used for the meta-analyses. The mean changes (+/-SE) in CBP and HBP (systolic/diastolic) were -15.2+/-0.03/-10.3+/-0.03 mm Hg and -12.2+/-0.04/-8.0+/-0.04 mm Hg respectively, although there were wide varieties of differences in the reduction between HBP and CBP. The reductions in CBP were correlated with those of HBP (systolic BP; r=0.66, B=0.48, diastolic BP; r=0.71, B=0.52, P<0.001). In 7 studies that also included 24-hour BP monitoring, the reduction of HBP was greater than that of 24-hour BP in systolic (HBP; -12.6+/-0.06 mm Hg, 24-hour BP; -11.9+/-0.04 mm Hg, P<0.001). In 5 studies that included daytime and nighttime systolic BP separately, HBP decreased 15% more than daytime ambulatory BP and 30% more than nighttime ambulatory BP. In conclusion, HBP falls approximately 20% less than CBP with antihypertensive treatments. Daytime systolic BP falls 15% less and nighttime systolic BP falls 30% less than home systolic BP.

SUBMITTER: Ishikawa J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4593654 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Changes in home versus clinic blood pressure with antihypertensive treatments: a meta-analysis.

Ishikawa Joji J Carroll Deirdre J DJ Kuruvilla Sujith S Schwartz Joseph E JE Pickering Thomas G TG

Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) 20080922 5

Home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring is recommended for assessing the effects of antihypertensive treatment, but it is not clear how the treatment-induced changes in HBP compare with the changes in clinic blood pressure (CBP). We searched PubMed using the terms "home or self-measured blood pressure," and selected articles in which the changes in CBP and HBP (using the upper arm oscillometric method) induced by antihypertensive drugs were presented. We performed a systematic review of 30 articles ...[more]

PMID: 18809791

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:It is debatable whether treating multimorbid nursing home patients with antihypertensive drugs produces beneficial effects. Most cardiovascular guidelines promote treatment; few have advice on how to deprescribe when treatment may no longer be necessary. We investigated the effect of medication review on antihypertensive drug use and the association between cognition, blood pressure, and prescribing. Methods:From August 2014 to December 2015, 765 patients from 72 units (clusters) in 32 Norwegian nursing homes were included in a 4-month, multicentre, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, with 9-month follow-up. Patients ? 65 years old with antihypertensive treatment (n = 295, 39%) were randomized to systematic medication review where the physician received support from peers (collegial mentoring) or were given care as usual (control condition). Outcome measures were the number of antihypertensive drugs, systolic blood pressure, and pulse. We used hospitalizations and deaths as criteria to assess harm. Results:At baseline, each patient used 9.2 ± 3.5 regular drugs, and 1.6 ± 0.7 antihypertensives. Mean blood pressure was 128/71 mmHg and 9% had a systolic pressure ? 160 mmHg. Between baseline and month four, antihypertensives were deprescribed to a significantly higher extent in the intervention group (n = 43, 32%) compared to control (n = 11, 10%); Incidence Rate Ratio = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.7-0.9. In the intervention group, there was an immediate increase in systolic blood pressure when antihypertensives were reduced, from baseline 128 ± 19.5 mmHg to 143 ± 25.5 mmHg at month four. However, at month nine, the blood pressure had reverted to baseline values (mean 134 mmHg). Deprescription did not affect pulse and systolic pressure. The number of hospitalizations was higher in control patients at month four (P = 0.031) and nine (P = 0.041). Conclusion:A systematic medication review supported by collegial mentoring significantly decreased the use of antihypertensive drugs in nursing home patients without an effect on the systolic blood pressure over time.

Project description:BackgroundThe Global Burden of Diseases Study 2010 reported that hypertension is worldwide the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease, causing 9.4 million deaths annually. We examined to what extent self-measurement of home blood pressure (HBP) refines risk stratification across increasing categories of conventional blood pressure (CBP).Methods and findingsThis meta-analysis included 5,008 individuals randomly recruited from five populations (56.6% women; mean age, 57.1 y). All were not treated with antihypertensive drugs. In multivariable analyses, hazard ratios (HRs) associated with 10-mm Hg increases in systolic HBP were computed across CBP categories, using the following systolic/diastolic CBP thresholds (in mm Hg): optimal, <120/<80; normal, 120-129/80-84; high-normal, 130-139/85-89; mild hypertension, 140-159/90-99; and severe hypertension, ≥160/≥100. Over 8.3 y, 522 participants died, and 414, 225, and 194 had cardiovascular, cardiac, and cerebrovascular events, respectively. In participants with optimal or normal CBP, HRs for a composite cardiovascular end point associated with a 10-mm Hg higher systolic HBP were 1.28 (1.01-1.62) and 1.22 (1.00-1.49), respectively. At high-normal CBP and in mild hypertension, the HRs were 1.24 (1.03-1.49) and 1.20 (1.06-1.37), respectively, for all cardiovascular events and 1.33 (1.07-1.65) and 1.30 (1.09-1.56), respectively, for stroke. In severe hypertension, the HRs were not significant (p≥0.20). Among people with optimal, normal, and high-normal CBP, 67 (5.0%), 187 (18.4%), and 315 (30.3%), respectively, had masked hypertension (HBP≥130 mm Hg systolic or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic). Compared to true optimal CBP, masked hypertension was associated with a 2.3-fold (1.5-3.5) higher cardiovascular risk. A limitation was few data from low- and middle-income countries.ConclusionsHBP substantially refines risk stratification at CBP levels assumed to carry no or only mildly increased risk, in particular in the presence of masked hypertension. Randomized trials could help determine the best use of CBP vs. HBP in guiding BP management. Our study identified a novel indication for HBP, which, in view of its low cost and the increased availability of electronic communication, might be globally applicable, even in remote areas or in low-resource settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis.ObjectiveCompare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension.Design, setting, and participantsDiagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic.InterventionsRandomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks.Main measuresPrimary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes.Key resultsFive hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively.LimitationsSingle health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation.ConclusionsCompared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Dataset Information

Changes in home versus clinic blood pressure with antihypertensive treatments: a meta-analysis.

Publications

Changes in home versus clinic blood pressure with antihypertensive treatments: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets