Literature DB >> 35503346

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Diagnosis of Hypertension During Higher-Risk Pregnancy: The BUMP 1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Katherine L Tucker1, Sam Mort1, Ly-Mee Yu1, Helen Campbell2, Oliver Rivero-Arias2, Hannah M Wilson3, Julie Allen1, Rebecca Band4, Alison Chisholm1, Carole Crawford1, Greig Dougall1, Lazarina Engonidou1, Marloes Franssen1, Marcus Green5, Sheila Greenfield6, Lisa Hinton1,7, James Hodgkinson6, Layla Lavallee1, Paul Leeson8, Christine McCourt9, Lucy Mackillop10, Jane Sandall3, Mauro Santos11, Lionel Tarassenko11, Carmelo Velardo11, Lucy Yardley4,12, Lucy C Chappell3, Richard J McManus1.   

Abstract

Importance: Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure (BP) is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. Self-monitoring of BP in the general population has been shown to improve the diagnosis and management of hypertension; however, little is known about its use in pregnancy. Objective: To determine whether self-monitoring of BP in higher-risk pregnancies leads to earlier detection of pregnancy hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that included 2441 pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia and recruited at a mean of 20 weeks' gestation from 15 hospital maternity units in England between November 2018 and October 2019. Final follow-up was completed in April 2020. Interventions: Participating individuals were randomized to either BP self-monitoring with telemonitoring (n = 1223) plus usual care or usual antenatal care alone (n = 1218) without access to telemonitored BP. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to first recorded hypertension measured by a health care professional.
Results: Among 2441 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 33 [5.6] years; mean gestation, 20 [1.6] weeks), 2346 (96%) completed the trial. The time from randomization to clinic recording of hypertension was not significantly different between individuals in the self-monitoring group (mean [SD], 104.3 [32.6] days) vs in the usual care group (mean [SD], 106.2 [32.0] days) (mean difference, -1.6 days [95% CI, -8.1 to 4.9]; P = .64). Eighteen serious adverse events were reported during the trial with none judged as related to the intervention (12 [1%] in the self-monitoring group vs 6 [0.5%] in the usual care group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly earlier clinic-based detection of hypertension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35503346      PMCID: PMC9066279          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.4712

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   157.335


  31 in total

1.  The brief illness perception questionnaire.

Authors:  Elizabeth Broadbent; Keith J Petrie; Jodie Main; John Weinman
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Randomized comparison of a reduced-visit prenatal care model enhanced with remote monitoring.

Authors:  Yvonne S Butler Tobah; Annie LeBlanc; Megan E Branda; Jonathan W Inselman; Megan A Morris; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Dawn M Finnie; Regan Theiler; Vanessa E Torbenson; Ellen M Brodrick; Marnie Meylor de Mooij; Bobbie Gostout; Abimbola Famuyide
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Automated blood pressure self-measurement station compared to office blood pressure measurement for first trimester screening of pre-eclampsia.

Authors:  Louise Holm; Tone Stucke-Brander; Stefan Wagner; Puk Sandager; Jacob Schlütter; Camilla Lindahl; Niels Uldbjerg
Journal:  Health Informatics J       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 2.681

4.  The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).

Authors:  T M Marteau; H Bekker
Journal:  Br J Clin Psychol       Date:  1992-09

5.  Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L).

Authors:  M Herdman; C Gudex; A Lloyd; Mf Janssen; P Kind; D Parkin; G Bonsel; X Badia
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-04-09       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): an unmasked randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard J McManus; Jonathan Mant; Marloes Franssen; Alecia Nickless; Claire Schwartz; James Hodgkinson; Peter Bradburn; Andrew Farmer; Sabrina Grant; Sheila M Greenfield; Carl Heneghan; Susan Jowett; Una Martin; Siobhan Milner; Mark Monahan; Sam Mort; Emma Ogburn; Rafael Perera-Salazar; Syed Ahmar Shah; Ly-Mee Yu; Lionel Tarassenko; F D Richard Hobbs
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Home blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Karen Tran; Raj Padwal; Nadia Khan; Mary-Doug Wright; Wee Shian Chan
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2021-06-15

8.  HOspital care versus TELemonitoring in high-risk pregnancy (HOTEL): study protocol for a multicentre non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Josephus F M van den Heuvel; Wessel Ganzevoort; Jiska M De Haan-Jebbink; David P van der Ham; Koen L Deurloo; Laura Seeber; Arie Franx; Mireille N Bekker
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model.

Authors:  Margaret Constanti; Rebecca Boffa; Christopher N Floyd; Anthony S Wierzbicki; Richard J McManus; Mark Glover
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 3.012

10.  How Do Home and Clinic Blood Pressure Readings Compare in Pregnancy?

Authors:  Katherine L Tucker; Clare Bankhead; James Hodgkinson; Nia Roberts; Richard Stevens; Carl Heneghan; Évelyne Rey; Chern Lo; Manju Chandiramani; Rennae S Taylor; Robyn A North; Asma Khalil; Kathryn Marko; Jason Waugh; Mark Brown; Carole Crawford; Kathryn S Taylor; Lucy Mackillop; Richard J McManus
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 10.190

View more
  3 in total

1.  Data Errors in Table 1 of Blood Pressure Self-monitoring Trial.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 157.335

2.  Bringing the Cuff Home: Challenges and Opportunities Associated With Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Among Reproductive-Aged Individuals.

Authors:  Natalie A Cameron; Natalie A Bello; Sadiya S Khan
Journal:  Am J Hypertens       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 3.080

3.  Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Blood Pressure Control in Pregnant Individuals With Chronic or Gestational Hypertension: The BUMP 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Lucy C Chappell; Katherine L Tucker; Ushma Galal; Ly-Mee Yu; Helen Campbell; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Julie Allen; Rebecca Band; Alison Chisholm; Carole Crawford; Greig Dougall; Lazarina Engonidou; Marloes Franssen; Marcus Green; Sheila Greenfield; Lisa Hinton; James Hodgkinson; Layla Lavallee; Paul Leeson; Christine McCourt; Lucy Mackillop; Jane Sandall; Mauro Santos; Lionel Tarassenko; Carmelo Velardo; Hannah Wilson; Lucy Yardley; Richard J McManus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 157.335

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.