These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Level of blood pressure control in a hypertensive population when measurements are performed outside the clinical setting.
    Author: Félix-Redondo FJ, Fernández-Bergés D, Espinosa-Garcia J, Pozuelos-Estrada J, Molina-Martínez LM, Pérez-Castán JF, Ríos-Rivera J, Valiente-Rubio JI, Gómez-de-la-Cámara A, Rodríguez-Pascual N.
    Journal: Cardiol J; 2009; 16(1):57-67. PubMed ID: 19130417.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: To determine whether the number of optimally controlled hypertensive patients is higher using self-measurement of blood pressure at home and ambulatory monitoring, compared to using conventional blood pressure measurements at the doctor's office. METHOD: An observational, cross-sectional, multicentre, descriptive study of a random sample of 237 primary health care patients, known to be hypertensive, from Badajoz (Spain). Blood pressure was measured at the doctor's office and by self-measurement at home. Those patients showing good control by self-measurement were subjected to 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. Optimal control was understood as blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg when measured at the doctor's office, and < 135/85 mm Hg when self-measured at home and by daytime ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: Mean systolic/diastolic measurements at the doctor's office and by self-measurement were 145.6/83.9 and 134.0/78.7 mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.000). In the population optimally controlled by self-measurement and who subsequently received ambulatory monitoring, the mean blood pressure was 121.8/73.4 and 125.6/76.2 mm Hg, respectively (p = 0.002; p < 0.000). When measured at the doctor's office blood pressure was controlled in about 29.5% (95% CI 23.7-35.3%) of patients, in 38% when self-measured (95% CI 31.4-44.2%; p < 0.000), and in 24.5% when it was confirmed through ambulatory monitoring (95% CI 15.4-33.6%). Sensitivity and positive predictive values of the office measurements for the detection of patients who were well-controlled by self-measurement were 50% and 64.3%, respectively, and 53.4% and 73.8% as regards ambulatory monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: A higher level of control is achieved with self-measurement at home not confirmed by ambulatory monitoring. Therefore, the white coat effect does not seem to influence the percentage of well-controlled patients detected at the doctor's office. Office blood pressure does not appear to be useful in distinguishing which individual patients are optimally controlled.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]