Oscar Hägglund1,2, Per Svensson3,4, Cecilia Linde5,6, Jan Östergren1,2. 1. Functional Area of Emergency Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Medicine, Solna, Clinical Medicine Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. 4. Department of Cardiology, Södersjukhuset, Sweden. 5. Heart and Vascular Theme Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Department of Medicine, Solna, Cardiology Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
Office blood pressure (OBP) is used for diagnosing and treating hypertension but ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) associates more accurately with patient outcome. BP control is important in secondary prevention but it is unknown whether the use of APBM improves BP-control in this setting. Our objective was to investigate whether physician awareness of ABP after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved BP-control. Methods: A total of 200 patients performed ABPM before and after their PCI follow-up visit. Patients were randomized to open (O) or concealed (C) ABPM results for the physician at the follow-up visit. The change in ABP and antihypertensive medication in relation to baseline ABP was compared between the two groups. Results: The average OBP (O and C: 128/76 mmHg) and ABP (O: 123/73 mmHg, C: 127/74 mmHg) was well controlled and did not change between the first and second measurement. A slight increase in systolic ABP during night time was observed in the open arm compared to the concealed arm. Among patients with high ABP (>130/80 mm Hg) at baseline more patients in the C compared to O group remained with a high ABP at the end of study 34/44 (77%) vs 19/34 (56%), p = 0.045. There was a positive correlation between baseline systolic ABP and ABP change in both the O (r = 0.41, p < 0.001) and the C (r = 0.24, p = 0.014) groups but the association was steeper in the open group (p = 0.035). In patients with low ABP an increase and in patients with high ABP a decrease in ABP was observed in the O group where more changes in medication were done. Conclusions: ABPM did not lower blood pressure in patients with CAD apart from in those with elevated ABP but led to more relevant changes in antihypertensive treatments. Further studies are needed to answer whether patient outcome is affected.
RCT Entities:
Office blood pressure (OBP) is used for diagnosing and treating hypertension but ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) associates more accurately with patient outcome. BP control is important in secondary prevention but it is unknown whether the use of APBM improves BP-control in this setting. Our objective was to investigate whether physician awareness of ABP after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved BP-control. Methods: A total of 200 patients performed ABPM before and after their PCI follow-up visit. Patients were randomized to open (O) or concealed (C) ABPM results for the physician at the follow-up visit. The change in ABP and antihypertensive medication in relation to baseline ABP was compared between the two groups. Results: The average OBP (O and C: 128/76 mmHg) and ABP (O: 123/73 mmHg, C: 127/74 mmHg) was well controlled and did not change between the first and second measurement. A slight increase in systolic ABP during night time was observed in the open arm compared to the concealed arm. Among patients with high ABP (>130/80 mm Hg) at baseline more patients in the C compared to O group remained with a high ABP at the end of study 34/44 (77%) vs 19/34 (56%), p = 0.045. There was a positive correlation between baseline systolic ABP and ABP change in both the O (r = 0.41, p < 0.001) and the C (r = 0.24, p = 0.014) groups but the association was steeper in the open group (p = 0.035). In patients with low ABP an increase and in patients with high ABP a decrease in ABP was observed in the O group where more changes in medication were done. Conclusions: ABPM did not lower blood pressure in patients with CAD apart from in those with elevated ABP but led to more relevant changes in antihypertensive treatments. Further studies are needed to answer whether patient outcome is affected.
Authors: Andrew Sherwood; Julie K Bower; Faye S Routledge; James A Blumenthal; Judith A McFetridge-Durdle; L Kristin Newby; Alan L Hinderliter Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Masahiro Kikuya; Tine W Hansen; Lutgarde Thijs; Kristina Björklund-Bodegård; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Tom Richart; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Lind; Hans Ibsen; Yutaka Imai; Jan A Staessen Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-04-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Giuseppe Mansia; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Renata Cifkova; Robert Fagard; Giuseppe Germano; Guido Grassi; Anthony M Heagerty; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stephane Laurent; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Luis Ruilope; Andrzej Rynkiewicz; Roland E Schmieder; Harry A Struijker Boudier; Alberto Zanchetti Journal: Blood Press Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.835
Authors: Jian L Yeo; Gaurav S Gulsin; Emer M Brady; Abhishek Dattani; Joanna M Bilak; Anna-Marie Marsh; Manjit Sian; Lavanya Athithan; Kelly S Parke; Joanne Wormleighton; Matthew P M Graham-Brown; Anvesha Singh; J Ranjit Arnold; Claire Lawson; Melanie J Davies; Hui Xue; Peter Kellman; Gerry P McCann Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2022-05-28 Impact factor: 8.949
Authors: Weiwei Zeng; Tanya T W Chu; Chung Shun Ho; Clara W S Lo; Alan S L Chan; Alice P S Kong; Brian Tomlinson; Sze Wa Chan Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-01