Literature DB >> 20385970

Home-measured blood pressure is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular risk than office blood pressure: the Finn-Home study.

Teemu J Niiranen1, Marjo-Riitta Hänninen, Jouni Johansson, Antti Reunanen, Antti M Jula.   

Abstract

Previous studies with some limitations have provided equivocal results for the prognostic significance of home-measured blood pressure (BP). We investigated whether home-measured BP is more strongly associated with cardiovascular events and total mortality than is office BP. A prospective nationwide study was initiated in 2000 to 2001 on 2081 randomly selected subjects aged 45 to 74 years. Home and office BP were determined at baseline along with other cardiovascular risk factors. The primary end point was incidence of a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The secondary end point was total mortality. After a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, 162 subjects had experienced a cardiovascular event, and 118 subjects had died. In Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for other cardiovascular risk factors, office BP (systolic/diastolic hazard ratio [HR] per 10/5 mm Hg increase in BP, 1.13/1.13; systolic/diastolic 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.22/1.05 to 1.22) and home BP (HR, 1.23/1.18; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.34/1.10 to 1.27) were predictive of cardiovascular events. However, when both BPs were simultaneously included in the models, only home BP (HR, 1.22/1.15; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.37/1.05 to 1.26), not office BP (HR, 1.01/1.06; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12/0.97 to 1.16), was predictive of cardiovascular events. Systolic home BP was the sole predictor of total mortality (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01/1.23). Our findings suggest that home-measured BP is prognostically superior to office BP. On the basis of the results of this and previous studies, it can be concluded that home BP measurement offers specific advantages more than conventional office measurement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20385970     DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.149336

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hypertension        ISSN: 0194-911X            Impact factor:   10.190


  116 in total

Review 1.  Clinical significance of home blood pressure and its possible practical application.

Authors:  Yutaka Imai
Journal:  Clin Exp Nephrol       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 2.801

2.  Waiting a few extra minutes before measuring blood pressure has potentially important clinical and research ramifications.

Authors:  S B Nikolic; W P Abhayaratna; R Leano; M Stowasser; J E Sharman
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 3.012

3.  Diagnostic Thresholds for Blood Pressure Measured at Home in the Context of the 2017 Hypertension Guideline.

Authors:  Wanpen Vongpatanasin; Colby Ayers; Hamza Lodhi; Sandeep R Das; Jarett D Berry; Amit Khera; Ronald G Victor; Feng-Chang Lin; Anthony J Viera; Yuichiro Yano; James A de Lemos
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 10.190

4.  Relationship between office and home blood pressure with increasing age: The International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDHOCO).

Authors:  Angeliki Ntineri; George S Stergiou; Lutgarde Thijs; Kei Asayama; José Boggia; Nadia Boubouchairopoulou; Atsushi Hozawa; Yutaka Imai; Jouni K Johansson; Antti M Jula; Anastasios Kollias; Leonella Luzardo; Teemu J Niiranen; Kyoko Nomura; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Ichiro Tsuji; Christophe Tzourio; Fang-Fei Wei; Jan A Staessen
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 3.872

Review 5.  Does blood pressure variability contribute to risk stratification? Methodological issues and a review of outcome studies based on home blood pressure.

Authors:  Kei Asayama; Fang-Fei Wei; Yan-Ping Liu; Azusa Hara; Yu-Mei Gu; Rudolph Schutte; Yan Li; Lutgarde Thijs; Jan A Staessen
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.872

6.  Setting and Method of Measurement Affect Blood Pressure Readings in Older Veterans.

Authors:  Justin J Cheng; Steven C Castle; Erin H Blanchard; David Segovia; Cathy C Lee
Journal:  Fed Pract       Date:  2018-06

7.  Recommended standards for assessing blood pressure in human research where blood pressure or hypertension is a major focus.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 3.012

Review 8.  The complexity of masked hypertension: diagnostic and management challenges.

Authors:  Stanley S Franklin; Nathan D Wong
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 5.369

9.  Outcome-Driven Thresholds for Ambulatory Blood Pressure Based on the New American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Classification of Hypertension.

Authors:  Yi-Bang Cheng; Lutgarde Thijs; Zhen-Yu Zhang; Masahiro Kikuya; Wen-Yi Yang; Jesus D Melgarejo; José Boggia; Fang-Fei Wei; Tine W Hansen; Cai-Guo Yu; Kei Asayama; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Eamon Dolan; Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek; Sofia Malyutina; Edoardo Casiglia; Lars Lind; Jan Filipovský; Gladys E Maestre; Yutaka Imai; Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz; Edgardo Sandoya; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Yan Li; Eoin O'Brien; Ji-Guang Wang; Jan A Staessen
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 10.190

10.  Management of Resistant Hypertension: Do Not Give Up on Medication.

Authors:  Eric Judd; David A Calhoun
Journal:  Nephrol Self Assess Program       Date:  2014-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.