Literature DB >> 8642194

Office, nurse, basal and ambulatory blood pressure as predictors of hypertensive target organ damage in male and female patients.

D P Veerman1, K de Blok, B J Delemarre, G A van Montfrans.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the value of two substitutes for ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring: nurse-measured BP and BP measured by an automated device during 1 h resting in the clinic (basal BP). Hypertensive patients in an academic out-patients clinic were selected consecutively. We compared the relation of indices of early target organ damage (echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and urinary albumin excretion (expressed as albumin/creatinine ratio: ACR) to physician measured and nurse measured basal and ambulatory BP. The relation of BP to LVMI and the logACR were also studied for both sexes separately. Sixty-two patients (28 men, 34 women) were included, all untreated for >3 months. Systolic office BP was not significantly related to the LVMI (r2 = 0.04, P > 0.05), whereas nurse measured (r2 = 0.11, P < 0.05), basal (r2 = 0.13, P < 0.01) and ambulatory daytime (r2 = 0.13, P < 0.05) and night time (r2 = 0.17, p < 0.001) SBP did have a significant relation to LVMI. There was no difference in the relation of office, nurse, basal or ambulatory BP to logACR. In contrast to the highly significant relation of SBP to LVMI for male patients (day: r2 = 0.29, P < 0.01, night: r2 = 0.46, P < 0.001) this relation was non-existent for female patients (day: r2 = 0.09, P > 0.05, night: r2 = 0.02, P > 0.05). The relation between BP and logACR did not differ between the sexes. We conclude that: (1) to some degree nurse measured and basal BP may be considered as better predictors of early hypertensive target organ damage than physician measured BP; and (2) there is a pronounced sex difference in the relation of BP to left ventricular mass.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8642194

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Hypertens        ISSN: 0950-9240            Impact factor:   3.012


  4 in total

Review 1.  Doctors record higher blood pressures than nurses: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Christopher E Clark; Isabella A Horvath; Rod S Taylor; John L Campbell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Does blood pressure variability modulate cardiovascular risk?

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 5.369

3.  Comparison of agreement between different measures of blood pressure in primary care and daytime ambulatory blood pressure.

Authors:  Paul Little; Jane Barnett; Lucy Barnsley; Jean Marjoram; Alex Fitzgerald-Barron; David Mant
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-08-03

4.  Comparison of nurse attended and unattended automated office blood pressure with conventional measurement techniques in clinical practice.

Authors:  Elvira Fanelli; Silvia Di Monaco; Marco Pappaccogli; Elisabetta Eula; Chiara Fasano; Chiara Bertello; Franco Veglio; Franco Rabbia
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 2.877

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.