OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess whether home blood pressure measurement is a reliable alternative to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the evaluation of treated patients with inadequate blood pressure control at the clinic; and (2) to evaluate the relationship between home blood pressure and several target-organ damage markers. BASIC METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed in 225 treated hypertensive patients with persistently high blood pressure values at the clinic (systolic blood pressure 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 mmHg). All study participants underwent clinic blood pressure measurement, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure monitoring. A subgroup of patients underwent the following procedures: carotid echography (n=74), microalbuminuria determination (n=88) and echocardiography (n=43). We defined out-of-clinic normotension as an average ambulatory or home blood pressure less than 135 mmHg (systolic) and 85 mmHg (diastolic). MAIN RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of the home blood pressure method for predicting out-of-clinic normotension (with the ambulatory method used as reference), expressed as percentages, were 50, 87, 64 and 79%, respectively. Systolic home blood pressure correlated significantly with left ventricular mass (r=0.33, P<0.05) and microalbuminuria (r=0.24, P<0.05). Similar correlation coefficients were found for systolic ambulatory blood pressure (r=0.32, P<0.05 and r=0.24, P<0.05, respectively). Clinic blood pressure did not correlate with either left ventricular mass or microalbuminuria (r=0.19, P=0.09 and r=0.19, P=0.24, respectively). Diastolic home blood pressure, but not ambulatory blood pressure, correlated negatively with mean carotid intima-media thickness (r=-0.27, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, in patients with poorly controlled hypertension at the clinic, home blood pressure represents a complementary test rather than an alternative to ambulatory blood pressure, and correlates with several target-organ damage markers.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess whether home blood pressure measurement is a reliable alternative to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the evaluation of treated patients with inadequate blood pressure control at the clinic; and (2) to evaluate the relationship between home blood pressure and several target-organ damage markers. BASIC METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed in 225 treated hypertensivepatients with persistently high blood pressure values at the clinic (systolic blood pressure 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 mmHg). All study participants underwent clinic blood pressure measurement, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure monitoring. A subgroup of patients underwent the following procedures: carotid echography (n=74), microalbuminuria determination (n=88) and echocardiography (n=43). We defined out-of-clinic normotension as an average ambulatory or home blood pressure less than 135 mmHg (systolic) and 85 mmHg (diastolic). MAIN RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of the home blood pressure method for predicting out-of-clinic normotension (with the ambulatory method used as reference), expressed as percentages, were 50, 87, 64 and 79%, respectively. Systolic home blood pressure correlated significantly with left ventricular mass (r=0.33, P<0.05) and microalbuminuria (r=0.24, P<0.05). Similar correlation coefficients were found for systolic ambulatory blood pressure (r=0.32, P<0.05 and r=0.24, P<0.05, respectively). Clinic blood pressure did not correlate with either left ventricular mass or microalbuminuria (r=0.19, P=0.09 and r=0.19, P=0.24, respectively). Diastolic home blood pressure, but not ambulatory blood pressure, correlated negatively with mean carotid intima-media thickness (r=-0.27, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, in patients with poorly controlled hypertension at the clinic, home blood pressure represents a complementary test rather than an alternative to ambulatory blood pressure, and correlates with several target-organ damage markers.
Authors: Trevor W Glenn; Cyd K Eaton; Kevin J Psoter; Michelle N Eakin; Cozumel S Pruette; Kristin A Riekert; Tammy M Brady Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 3.651
Authors: Daichi Shimbo; Sujith Kuruvilla; Donald Haas; Thomas G Pickering; Joseph E Schwartz; William Gerin Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Jessica C Levenson; Bruce L Rollman; Lee M Ritterband; Patrick J Strollo; Kenneth J Smith; Jonathan G Yabes; Charity G Moore; Allison G Harvey; Daniel J Buysse Journal: Trials Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 2.279