Search

Context: The clinical use of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring requires further validation in prospective outcome studies.Objective: To compare the prognostic significance of conventional and ambulatory BP measurement in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension.Design: Substudy to the double-blind placebo-controlled Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial, started in October 1988 with follow up to February 1999. The conventional BP at randomization was the mean of 6 readings (2 measurements in the sitting position at 3 visits 1 month apart). The baseline ambulatory BP was recorded with a noninvasive intermittent technique.Setting: Family practices and outpatient clinics at primary and secondary referral hospitals.Participants: A total of 808 older (aged > or =60 years) patients whose untreated BP level on conventional measurement at baseline was 160 to 219 mm Hg systolic and less than 95 mm Hg diastolic.Interventions: For the overall study, patients were randomized to nitrendipine (n = 415; 10-40 mg/d) with the possible addition of enalapril (5-20 mg/d) and/or hydrochlorothiazide (12.5-25.0 mg/d) or to matching placebos (n = 393).Main Outcome Measures: Total and cardiovascular mortality, all cardiovascular end points, fatal and nonfatal stroke, and fatal and nonfatal cardiac end points.Results: After adjusting for sex, age, previous cardiovascular complications, smoking, and residence in western Europe, a 10-mm Hg higher conventional systolic BP at randomization was not associated with a worse prognosis, whereas in the placebo group, a 10-mm Hg higher 24-hour BP was associated with an increased relative hazard rate (HR) of most outcome measures (eg, HR, 1.23 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.50] for total mortality and 1.34 [95% CI, 1.03-1.75] for cardiovascular mortality). In the placebo group, the nighttime systolic BP (12 AM-6 AM) more accurately predicted end points than the daytime level. Cardiovascular risk increased with a higher night-to-day ratio of systolic BP independent of the 24-hour BP (10% increase in night-to-day ratio; HR for all cardiovascular end points, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.94). At randomization, the cardiovascular risk conferred by a conventional systolic BP of 160 mm Hg was similar to that associated with a 24-hour daytime or nighttime systolic BP of 142 mm Hg (95% CI, 128-156 mm Hg), 145 mm Hg (95% CI, 126-164 mm Hg) or 132 mm Hg (95% CI, 120-145 mm Hg), respectively. In the active treatment group, systolic BP at randomization did not significantly predict cardiovascular risk, regardless of the technique of BP measurement.Conclusions: In untreated older patients with isolated systolic hypertension, ambulatory systolic BP was a significant predictor of cardiovascular risk over and above conventional BP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring is used increasingly in clinical practice, but how it affects treatment of blood pressure has not been determined.Objective: To compare conventional blood pressure (CBP) measurement and ABP measurement in the management of hypertensive patients.Design: Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial.Setting: Family practices and outpatient clinics at regional and university hospitals.Participants: A total of 419 patients (> or =18 years), whose untreated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) on CBP measurement averaged 95 mm Hg or higher, randomized to CBP or ABP arms.Interventions: Antihypertensive drug treatment was adjusted in a stepwise fashion based on either the average daytime (from 10 AM to 8 PM) ambulatory DBP (n=213) or the average of 3 sitting DBP readings (n=206). If the DBP guiding treatment was above (>89 mm Hg), at (80-89 mm Hg), or below (<80 mm Hg) target, 1 physician blinded to the patients' randomization intensified antihypertensive treatment, left it unchanged, or reduced it, respectively.Main Outcome Measures: The CBP and ABP levels, intensity of drug treatment, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic left ventricular mass, symptoms reported by questionnaire, and cost.Results: At the end of the study (median follow-up, 182 days; 5th to 95th percentile interval, 85-258 days), more ABP than CBP patients had stopped antihypertensive drug treatment (26.3% vs 7.3%; P<.001), and fewer ABP patients had progressed to sustained multiple-drug treatment (27.2% vs 42.7%; P<.001). The final CBP and 24-hour ABP averaged 144.1/89.9 mm Hg and 129.4/79.5 mm Hg in the ABP group and 140.3/89.6 mm Hg and 128.0/79.1 mm Hg in the CBP group. Left ventricular mass and reported symptoms were similar in the 2 groups. The potential savings in the ABP group in terms of less intensive drug treatment and fewer physician visits were offset by the costs of ABP monitoring.Conclusions: Adjustment of antihypertensive treatment based on ABP monitoring instead of CBP measurement led to less intensive drug treatment with preservation of blood pressure control, general well-being, and inhibition of left ventricular enlargement but did not reduce the overall costs of antihypertensive treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Self-measurement of blood pressure is increasingly used in clinical practice, but how it affects the treatment of hypertension requires further study., Objective: To compare use of blood pressure (BP) measurements taken in physicians' offices and at home in the treatment of patients with hypertension., Design, Setting, and Participants: Blinded randomized controlled trial conducted from March 1997 to April 2002 at 56 primary care practices and 3 hospital-based outpatient clinics in Belgium and 1 specialized hypertension clinic in Dublin, Ireland. Four hundred participants with a diastolic BP (DBP) of 95 mm Hg or more as measured at physicians' offices were enrolled and followed up for 1 year., Interventions: Antihypertensive drug treatment was adjusted in a stepwise fashion based on either the self-measured DBP at home (average of 6 measurements per day during 1 week; n = 203) or the average of 3 sitting DBP readings at the physician's office (n = 197). If the DBP guiding treatment was above (>89 mm Hg), at (80-89 mm Hg), or below (<80 mm Hg) target, a physician blinded to randomization intensified antihypertensive treatment, left it unchanged, or reduced it, respectively., Mean Outcome Measures: Office and home BP levels, 24-hour ambulatory BP, intensity of drug treatment, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic left ventricular mass, symptoms reported by questionnaire, and costs of treatment., Results: At the end of the study (median follow-up, 350 days; interquartile range, 326-409 days), more home BP than office BP patients had stopped antihypertensive drug treatment (25.6% vs 11.3%; P<.001) with no significant difference in the proportions of patients progressing to multiple-drug treatment (38.7% vs 45.1%; P =.14). The final office, home, and 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements were higher (P<.001) in the home BP group than in the office BP group. The mean baseline-adjusted systolic/diastolic differences between the home and office BP groups averaged 6.8/3.5 mm Hg, 4.9/2.9 mm Hg, and 4.9/2.9 mm Hg, respectively. Left ventricular mass and reported symptoms were similar in the 2 groups. Costs per 100 patients followed up for 1 month were only slightly lower in the home BP group (3875 vs 3522 [4921 dollars vs 4473 dollars]; P =.04)., Conclusions: Adjustment of antihypertensive treatment based on home BP instead of office BP led to less intensive drug treatment and marginally lower costs but also to less BP control, with no differences in general well-being or left ventricular mass. Self-measurement allowed identification of patients with white-coat hypertension. Our findings support a stepwise strategy for the evaluation of BP in which self-measurement and ambulatory monitoring are complementary to conventional office measurement and highlight the need for prospective outcome studies to establish the normal range of home-measured BP.