Search

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference—Individual Participant Data Collaboration. METHODS: One-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared. RESULTS: We analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P< 0.001). Higher arm BP models fitted better for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events (all P P CONCLUSIONS: Using BP from higher instead of lower reading arms reclassified 12% of people over thresholds used to diagnose hypertension. All prediction models performed better when using the higher arm BP. Both arms should be measured for accurate diagnosis and management of hypertension. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: CRD42015031227.

Hypertension guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms at least once. However, this is seldom done due to uncertainties regarding measurement procedure and the implications of finding a clinically important inter-arm BP difference (IAD). This study aimed to provide insight into the prevalence of clinically important IADs in a large Indian primary care cohort. A number of 134678 (37% female) unselected Indian primary care participants, mean age 45.2 (SD 11.9) years, had BP measured in both arms using a standardized, triplicate, automated simultaneous measurement method (Microlife WatchBP Office Afib). On average, there were clinically minor differences in right and left arm BP values: systolic BP 134.4 vs. 134.2 mmHg (p0.01) and diastolic BP 82.7 vs. 82.6 mmHg (p0.01), respectively. Prevalence of significant mean systolic IAD between 10 and 15 mmHg was 7813 (5.8%). Systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg 2980 (2.2%) and diastolic IAD ≥ 10 mmHg 7151 (5.3%). In total, there were 7595 (5.6%) and 8548 (6.3%) participants with BP above the 140/90 mmHg threshold in only the left or right arm, respectively. Prevalence of participants with elevated BP on one arm only was highest in patients with a systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg; 19.1% and 13.7%, for left and right arm, respectively. This study shows that a substantial prevalence of IAD exist in Indian primary care patients. BP is above the diagnostic threshold for hypertension in one arm only for 6% of participants. These findings emphasise the importance of undertaking bilateral BP measurement in routine clinical practice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

This is the final version. Available on open access from Springer Nature via the DOI in this record

BackgroundMost patients obtain medications from pharmacies by prescription, but rural general practices can dispense medications. The clinical implications of this difference in drug delivery are unknown. This study hypothesised that dispensing status may be associated with better medication adherence. This could impact intermediate clinical outcomes dependent on medication adherence in, for example, hypertension or diabetes.AimTo investigate whether dispensing status is associated with differences in achievement of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators that rely on medication adherence.Design and settingCross-sectional analysis of QOF data for 7392 general practices in England.MethodQOF data from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 linked to dispensing status for general practices with list sizes ≥1000 in England were analysed. QOF indicators were categorised according to whether their achievement depended on a record of prescribing only, medication adherence, or neither. Differences were estimated between dispensing and non-dispensing practices using mixed-effects logistic regression, adjusting for practice population age, sex, deprivation, list size, single-handed status, and rurality.ResultsData existed for 7392 practices; 1014 (13.7%) could dispense. Achievement was better in dispensing practices than in non-dispensing practices for seven of nine QOF indicators dependent on adherence, including blood pressure targets. Only one of ten indicators dependent on prescribing but not adherence displayed better achievement; indicators unrelated to prescribing showed a trend towards higher achievement by dispensing practices.ConclusionDispensing practices may achieve better clinical outcomes than prescribing practices. Further work is required to explore underlying mechanisms for these observations and to directly study medication adherence rates.

Background Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (LVH) in uncontrolled hypertension is an independent predictor of mortality, though its regression with treatment improves outcomes. Retrospective data suggest that early control of hypertension provides a prognostic advantage and this strategy is included in the 2018 European guidelines, which recommend treating grade II/III hypertension to target blood pressure (BP) within 3 months. The earliest LVH regression to date was demonstrated by echocardiography at 24 weeks. The effect of a rapid guideline-based treatment protocol on LV remodelling, with very early BP control by 18 weeks remains controversial and previously unreported. We aimed to determine whether such rapid hypertension treatment is associated with improvements in LV structure and function through paired cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanning at baseline and 18 weeks, utilising CMR mass and feature tracking analysis. Methods We recruited participants with never-treated grade II/III hypertension, initiating a guideline-based treatment protocol which aimed to achieve BP control within 18 weeks. CMR and feature tracking were used to assess myocardial morphology and function immediately before and after treatment. Results We acquired complete pre- and 18-week post-treatment data for 41 participants. During the interval, LV mass index reduced significantly (43.5 ± 9.8 to 37.6 ± 8.3 g/m2, p Conclusions LVH regresses following just 18 weeks of intensive antihypertensive treatment in subjects with newly-diagnosed grade II/III hypertension. This is accompanied by potentially advantageous functional changes within the myocardium and supports the hypothesis that rapid treatment of hypertension could improve clinical outcomes. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry number: 57475376 (assigned 25/06/2015).

Background Postural hypotension (PH), the reduction in blood pressure when rising from sitting or lying 0to standing, is a risk factor for falls, cognitive decline and mortality. However, it is not often tested for in primary care. PH prevalence varies according to definition, population, care setting and measurement method. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of PH across different care settings and disease subgroups. Methods Systematic review, meta-analyses and meta-regression. We searched Medline and Embase to October 2019 for studies based in primary, community or institutional care settings reporting PH prevalence. Data and study level demographics were extracted independently by two reviewers. Pooled estimates for mean PH prevalence were compared between care settings and disease subgroups using random effects meta-analyses. Predictors of PH were explored using meta-regression. Quality assessment was undertaken using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results One thousand eight hundred sixteen studies were identified; 61 contributed to analyses. Pooled prevalences for PH using the consensus definition were 17% (95% CI, 14–20%; I2 = 99%) for 34 community cohorts, 19% (15–25%; I2 = 98%) for 23 primary care cohorts and 31% (15–50%; I2 = 0%) for 3 residential care or nursing homes cohorts (P = 0.16 between groups). By condition, prevalences were 20% (16–23%; I2 = 98%) with hypertension (20 cohorts), 21% (16–26%; I2 = 92%) with diabetes (4 cohorts), 25% (18–33%; I2 = 88%) with Parkinson’s disease (7 cohorts) and 29% (25–33%, I2 = 0%) with dementia (3 cohorts), compared to 14% (12–17%, I2 = 99%) without these conditions (P P P = 0.13, respectively; R2 = 36%). PH prevalence was not affected by blood pressure measurement device (P = 0.65) or sitting or supine resting position (P = 0.24), however, when the definition of PH did not fulfil the consensus description, but fell within its parameters, prevalence was underestimated (P = 0.01) irrespective of study quality (P = 0.04). Conclusions PH prevalence in populations relevant to primary care is substantial and the definition of PH used is important. Our findings emphasise the importance of considering checking for PH, particularly in vulnerable populations, to enable interventions to manage it. These data should contribute to future guidelines relevant to the detection and treatment of PH. PROSPERO:CRD42017075423.

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. BACKGROUND: Interarm differences (IADs) ≥10 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure (BP) are associated with greater incidence of cardiovascular disease. The effect of ethnicity and the white coat effect (WCE) on significant systolic IADs (ssIADs) are not well understood.METHODS: Differences in BP by ethnicity for different methods of BP measurement were examined in 770 people (300 White British, 241 South Asian, 229 African-Caribbean). Repeated clinic measurements were obtained simultaneously in the right and left arm using 2 BPTru monitors and comparisons made between the first reading, mean of second and third and mean of second to sixth readings for patients with, and without known hypertension. All patients had ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). WCE was defined as systolic clinic BP ≥10 mm Hg higher than daytime ABPM.RESULTS: No significant differences were seen in the prevalence of ssIAD between ethnicities whichever combinations of BP measurement were used and regardless of hypertensive status. ssIADs fell between the 1st measurement (161, 22%), 2nd/3rd (113, 16%), and 2nd-6th (78, 11%) (1st vs. 2nd/3rd and 2nd-6th, P < 0.001). Hypertensives with a WCE were more likely to have ssIADs on 1st, (odds ratio [OR] 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.04-2.86); 2nd/3rd, (OR 3.05 (1.68-5.53); and 2nd-6th measurements, (OR 2.58 (1.22-5.44). Nonhypertensive participants with a WCE were more likely to have a ssIAD on their first measurement (OR 3.82 (1.77 to -8.25) only.CONCLUSIONS: ssIAD prevalence does not vary with ethnicity regardless of hypertensive status but is affected by the number of readings, suggesting the influence of WCE. Multiple readings should be used to confirm ssIADs.

Background Various prevalence figures have been reported for inter-arm differences in blood pressure (IAD); variation may be explained by differing population vascular risk and by measurement method. Aim To review the literature to derive robust estimates of IAD prevalence relevant to community populations. Design and setting Systematic review and meta-analysis. Method MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for cross-sectional studies likely to represent general or primary care populations, reporting prevalence of IAD and employing a simultaneous method of measurement. Using study-level data, pooled estimates of mean prevalence of systolic IADs were calculated and compared using a random effects model. Results Eighty IAD studies were identified. Sixteen met inclusion criteria: pooled estimates of prevalence for systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg were 11.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.1 to 13.6) in hypertension, 7.4% (95% CI = 5.8 to 9.2) in diabetes, and 3.6% (95% CI = 2.3 to 5.0) for a general adult population ( P

Background Differences in blood pressure between arms are associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in cohorts with established vascular disease or substantially elevated cardiovascular risk. Aim To explore the association of inter-arm difference (IAD) with mortality in a community-dwelling cohort that is free of cardiovascular disease. Design and setting Cohort analysis of a randomised controlled trial in central Scotland, from April 1998 to October 2008. Method Volunteers from Lanarkshire, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, free of pre-existing vascular disease and with an ankle-brachial index ≤0.95, had systolic blood pressure measured in both arms at recruitment. Inter-arm blood pressure differences were calculated and examined for cross-sectional associations and differences in prospective survival. Outcome measures were cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality during mean follow-up of 8.2 years. Results Based on a single pair of measurements, 60% of 3350 participants had a systolic IAD ≥5 mmHg and 38% ≥10 mmHg. An IAD ≥5 mmHg was associated with increased cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.07) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.44, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.79). Within the subgroup of 764 participants who had hypertension, IADs of ≥5 mmHg or ≥10 mmHg were associated with both cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 2.63, 95% CI = 0.97 to 7.02, and adjusted HR 2.96, 95% CI = 1.27 to 6.88, respectively) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.67, 95% CI = 1.05 to 2.66, and adjusted HR 1.63, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.50, respectively). IADs ≥15 mmHg were not associated with survival differences in this population. Conclusion Systolic IADs in blood pressure are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events, including mortality, in a large cohort of people free of pre-existing vascular disease.

Rapid treatment to target in hypertension may have beneficial effects on long-term outcomes. This has led to a new recommendation in the 2018 European hypertension guidelines for patients with grade II/III hypertension to be treated to target within three months. However, whether it is feasible and safe to quickly manage treatment-naive grade II/III hypertension to target was unclear. We examined this using a single-centre before and after interventional study, treating newly diagnosed, never-treated, grade II/III hypertensive patients with a daytime average systolic ABP ≥ 150 mmHg to target within 18 weeks. The proportion at office target BP at 18 weeks was determined, together with office and ambulatory BP change from baseline to after the intervention. The protocol was designed to maximise medication adherence, including a low threshold for treatment adaptation. Safety was evaluated through close monitoring of adverse events and protocol discontinuation. Fifty-five participants were enrolled with 54 completing the protocol. 69 ± 12.3% were at office target BP at their final visit, despite a high average starting BP of 175/103 mmHg, as a consequence of significant reductions in both office and ambulatory BP. Of those at office target BP, 51% were above target on ambulatory measurement. Adherence testing demonstrated that 92% of participants were adherent to treatment at their final visit. Therefore we conclude that the accelerated management of treatment-naive grade II/III hypertension is feasible and safe to implement in routine practice and there is no evidence to suggest it causes harm. Further large-scale randomised studies of rapid, adaptive treatment, including a cost-effectiveness analysis, are required.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Hypertension affects the majority of people >60 years of age, making blood pressure measurement one of the most common reasons for patients to consult in primary care.1 Opportunistic blood pressure measurement also has merit, due to the well-established evidence linking uncontrolled hypertension to adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The majority of patient-facing hypertension care is delivered by doctors and nurses in general practice settings. Recent initiatives have seen pharmacists developing both their pharmacy and their practice-based workplace roles in new models of primary care. Therefore, considering pharmacists’ potential to extend their involvement in hypertension-related patient care is timely. Pharmacists undergo 4 years of undergraduate training and 1 year as a pre-registration pharmacist. They develop expertise in medications with a focus on safe prescribing and dispensing. Development of their diagnostic skills and clinical reasoning has, appropriately, been secondary to this. Hypertension is, for most people, an ostensibly asymptomatic condition. Therefore, hypothetic-deductive reasoning and pattern recognition (required for clinical care in undifferentiated illness) are not required to the same extent in hypertension care, as in other aspects of clinical care. Likewise, the management of hypertension is driven by algorithms in national guidelines, which give much clarity and certainty in this area of clinical care. Thus, training pharmacists to extend their roles in hypertension care may be more straightforward, in comparison to other clinical areas that demand complex diagnostic skills and management of uncertainty.2 The mainstay of hypertension management is medication intervention. Pharmacists are likely to have the necessary knowledge to identify potential medication risks, such as side effects, drug interactions, and polypharmacy. In addition, for autonomous practice, pharmacists will need …

Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects ~3% of the general population and is twice as common with hypertension. Validation protocols for automated sphygmomanometers exclude people with AF, raising concerns over accuracy of hypertension diagnosis or management, using out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring, in the presence of AF. Some devices include algorithms to detect AF; a feature open to misinterpretation as offering accurate BP measurement with AF. We undertook this review to explore accuracy of automated devices, with or without AF detection, for measuring BP. We searched Medline and Embase to October 2018 for studies comparing automated BP measurement devices to a standard mercury sphygmomanometer contemporaneously. Data were extracted by two reviewers. Mean BP differences between devices and mercury were calculated, where not reported and compared; meta-analyses were undertaken where possible. We included 13 studies reporting 14 devices. Mean systolic and diastolic BP differences from mercury ranged from −3.1 to + 6.1/−4.6 to +9.0 mmHg. Considerable heterogeneity existed between devices (I2: 80 to 90%). Devices with AF detection algorithms appeared no more accurate for BP measurement with AF than other devices. A previous review concluded that oscillometric devices are accurate for systolic but not diastolic BP measurement in AF. The present findings do not support that conclusion. Due to heterogeneity between devices, they should be evaluated on individual performance. We found no evidence that devices with AF detection measure BP more accurately in AF than other devices. More home or ambulatory automated BP monitors require validation in populations with AF.

Introduction Individual cohort studies in various populations and study-level meta-analyses have shown interarm differences (IAD) in blood pressure to be associated with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. However, key questions remain, such as follows: (1) What is the additional contribution of IAD to prognostic risk estimation for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality? (2) What is the minimum cut-off value for IAD that defines elevated risk? (3) Is there a prognostic value of IAD and do different methods of IAD measurement impact on the prognostic value of IAD? We aim to address these questions by conducting an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Methods and analysis This study will identify prospective cohort studies that measured blood pressure in both arms during recruitment, and invite authors to contribute IPD datasets to this collaboration. All patient data received will be combined into a single dataset. Using one-stage meta-analysis, we will undertake multivariable time-to-event regression modelling, with the aim of developing a new prognostic model for cardiovascular risk estimation that includes IAD. We will explore variations in risk contribution of IAD across predefined population subgroups (eg, hypertensives, diabetics), establish the lower limit of IAD that is associated with additional cardiovascular risk and assess the impact of different methods of IAD measurement on risk prediction. Ethics and dissemination This study will not include any patient identifiable data. Included datasets will already have ethical approval and consent from their sponsors. Findings will be presented to international conferences and published in peer reviewed journals, and we have a comprehensive dissemination strategy in place with integrated patient and public involvement. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015031227.

BackgroundPrevious surveys identified a shift to nurse-led care in hypertension in 2010. In 2011 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended ambulatory (ABPM) or home (HBPM) blood pressure (BP) monitoring for diagnosis of hypertension.AimTo survey the organisation of hypertension care in 2016 to identify changes, and to assess uptake of NICE diagnostic guidelines.Design and settingQuestionnaires were distributed to all 305 general practices in South West England.MethodResponses were compared with previous rounds (2007 and 2010). Data from the 2015 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) were used to compare responders with non-responders, and to explore associations of care organisation with QOF achievement.ResultsOne-hundred-and-seventeen practices (38%) responded. Responders had larger list sizes and greater achievement of the QOF target BP ≤150/90 mmHg. Healthcare assistants (HCAs) now monitor BP in 70% of practices, compared with 37% in 2010 and 19% in 2007 (PPConclusionIn primary care BP monitoring has devolved from GPs and nurses to HCAs. One in 10 practices are not implementing NICE guidelines on ABPM and HBPM for diagnosis of hypertension. Most practices express confidence interpreting HBPM results but less so with ABPM. The need for education and quality assurance for allied health professionals is highlighted, and for training in ABPM interpretation for GPs.

Objectives Falls are a common problem in older people. Postural hypotension contributes to falls but is often asymptomatic. In the absence of symptoms, postural hypotension is only infrequently checked for in clinical practice. We undertook this study to derive, validate and explore the prospective associations of a prediction tool to identify people likely to have unrecognised postural hypotension. Design and setting Cross-sectional and prospective multivariable cohort analysis. Participants 1317 participants of the Invecchiare in Chianti study, a population-based cohort representative of the older Italian population. Primary outcome measures Predictive value of score to suggest presence of postural hypotension. Methods Subjects were randomised 1:1 to derivation or validation cohorts. Within the derivation cohort, univariable associations for candidate predictors of postural hypotension were tested. Variables with p

A blood pressure (BP) difference between the upper limbs is often encountered in primary care. Knowledge of its prevalence and importance in the accurate measurement of BP is poor, representing a source of error. Current hypertension guidelines do not emphasize this.To establish the prevalence of an inter-arm blood pressure difference (IAD) and explore its association with other indicators of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) in a hypertensive primary care population.This was a cross-sectional study. Primary care, one rural general practice, was the setting of the study. The methods were controlled simultaneous measurement of brachial BPs, ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) and tiptoe stress testing in 94 subjects.In all, 18 of 94 [19%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11-27%] subjects had mean systolic inter-arm difference (sIAD)or =10 mmHg and seven of 94 (7%, 95% CI 2-12%) had mean diastolic inter-arm difference (dIAD)or =10 mmHg. Nineteen of 91 (20%, 95% CI 12-28%) had a reduced ABPI0.9. There was negative correlation between systolic (Pearson's correlation coefficient - 0.378; P = 0.01) and diastolic (Pearson's correlation coefficient - 0.225; P = 0.05) magnitudes of IAD with ABPI. On tiptoe testing, 9/90 subjects (10%, 95% CI 4-16%) had a pressure dropor =20%.An IAD and asymptomatic PVD are common in a primary care hypertensive population. Magnitude of the IAD is inversely correlated with ABPI, supporting the hypotheses that IADs are causally linked to PVD, and that IAD is a useful marker for the presence of PVD. Consequently, detection of an IAD should prompt the clinician to screen subjects for other signs of vascular disease and target them for aggressive cardiovascular risk factor modification.

A blood pressure (BP) difference between arms was first reported over 100 years ago. Knowledge of its prevalence and relevance to the accurate measurement of BP remains poor. Current hypertension guidelines do not emphasise it. The objectives of this study were to establish the best estimate of prevalence of the inter-arm difference (IAD) in the population, to consider its implications for accurate BP measurement and treatment, and to discuss its aetiology and potential as a risk marker for cardiovascular disease. Systematic literature review was carried out. The data sources were Medline EMBASE and CINAHL databases, and Index of Theses. Studies reporting prevalence rates of IAD were retrieved and considered for inclusion against explicit methodological criteria. Point prevalence rates were extracted and weighted mean prevalence rates calculated. The main outcome measures were weighted mean prevalences of systolic IADor =10 andor =20 mm Hg and of diastolic IADor =10 mm Hg. Thirty-one studies were identified. Most had methodological weaknesses; only four met the inclusion criteria. Pooled prevalences of the IAD from these four studies were 19.6% systolicor =10 mm Hg (95% CI 18.0-21.3%), 4.2% systolicor =20 mm Hg (95% CI 3.4-5.1%) and 8.1% diastolicor =10 mm Hg (95%CI 6.9-9.2%). In conclusion, an IAD is present in a substantial number of patients and should be looked for whenever diagnosis and treatment depend on accurate measurements of BP. The importance of an IAD should be better emphasised in current hypertension management guidelines. There is evidence associating an IAD with peripheral vascular disease, raising the possibility that its presence may predict cardiovascular events.

References to the difference in blood pressure (BP) measurements between arms can be traced back through more than a century of reports. International BP guidelines consistently recommend that BP is measured in both arms at initial assessment, and that accurate measurement of BP is important in both diagnosis and management. An interarm difference has been implicated in delay in the diagnosis of hypertension and is associated with a higher prevalence of poor control in hypertension. 1 Patients with systolic or diastolic interarm differences are encountered in cohorts with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, or peripheral arterial disease. Findings are largely derived from white European populations, but differences are also reported in African and Far-Eastern cohorts. A reduced ankle-brachial index is a proven predictor of increased all-cause mortality, and fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events. 2 A systolic interarm difference is also associated with peripheral arterial disease, cerebrovascular disease, and increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. 3 The data

Patients sometimes have differences ofor =20/10 mmHg in their blood pressure depending on which arm is measured. The prevalence and prognostic value of this finding in general practice are unknown. If these differences are due to peripheral vascular disease, these patients may be at increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events.Our aim was to establish the frequency and prognostic value of a blood pressure difference between arms in one rural general practice.Paired blood pressure readings were collected from patients attending the surgery. The outcome measures of myocardial infarction, new diagnosis of angina, a cerebrovascular event or death were recorded prospectively.A total of 280 patients were examined, and of these 13.6% had a systolic blood pressure difference (SBPD) ofor =20 mmHg, and 23.2% a diastolic blood pressure difference (DBPD) ofor =10 mmHg. Eighty-three patients were followed-up for 5.6 years. Patients with a DBPD ofor =10 mmHg showed a mean event-free survival of 3.3 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-4.4] compared with 5.0 years (95% CI 4.7-5.3) for those with a DBPD of10 mmHg (P0.0001). Patients with an SBPD ofor =20 mmHg showed a mean event-free survival of 3.5 years (95% CI 2.3-4.7) compared with 4.9 years (95% CI 4.5-5.2) for an SBPD of20 mmHg (P = 0.043).During a single assessment of blood pressure, there will be a minority of patients with a difference ofor =20/10 mmHg between their right and left arms. Measurement of both arms is therefore necessary to diagnose and treat hypertension accurately. This study suggests an association between blood pressure difference and increased morbidity and mortality. Priority should be given to managing other risk factors aggressively in those patients with a reproducible blood pressure difference ofor =20/10 mmHg.

Diabet. Med. 28, 250–261 (2011) Abstract Background Previous reviews demonstrate uncertainty about the effectiveness of nurse-led interventions in the management of hypertension. No specific reviews in diabetes have been identified. We have systematically reviewed the evidence for effectiveness of nurse-led interventions for people with diabetes mellitus. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Trials register were undertaken to identify studies comparing any intervention conducted by nurses in managing hypertension in diabetes with usual doctor-led care. Additional citations were identified from papers retrieved and correspondence with authors. Outcome measures were absolute systolic and diastolic blood pressure, change in blood pressure, proportions achieving study target blood pressure and proportions prescribed anti-hypertensive medication. Results Eleven studies were identified. Interventions included adoption of treatment algorithms, nurse-led clinics and nurse prescribing. Meta-analysis showed greater reductions in blood pressure in favour of any nurse-led interventions (systolic weighted mean difference −5.8 mmHg, 95% CI −9.6 to −2.0; diastolic weighted mean difference −4.2 mmHg, 95% CI −7.6 to −0.7) compared with usual doctor-led care. No overall superiority in achievement of study targets or in the use of medication was evident for any nurse-based interventions over doctor-led care. Conclusions There is some evidence for improved blood pressure outcomes with nurse-led interventions for hypertension in people with diabetes compared with doctor-led care. Nurse-based interventions require an algorithm to structure care and there is some preliminary evidence for better outcomes with nurse prescribing. Further work is needed to elucidate which nurse-led interventions are most effective.

Objective To review trials of nurse led interventions for hypertension in primary care to clarify the evidence base, establish whether nurse prescribing is an important intervention, and identify areas requiring further study. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Ovid Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, British Nursing Index, Cinahl, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Study selection Randomised controlled trials of nursing interventions for hypertension compared with usual care in adults. Data extraction Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, percentages reaching target blood pressure, and percentages taking antihypertensive drugs. Intervention effects were calculated as relative risks or weighted mean differences, as appropriate, and sensitivity analysis by study quality was undertaken. Data synthesis Compared with usual care, interventions that included a stepped treatment algorithm showed greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference −8.2 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval −11.5 to −4.9), nurse prescribing showed greater reductions in blood pressure (systolic −8.9 mm Hg, −12.5 to −5.3 and diastolic −4.0 mm Hg, −5.3 to −2.7), telephone monitoring showed higher achievement of blood pressure targets (relative risk 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.43), and community monitoring showed greater reductions in blood pressure (weighted mean difference, systolic −4.8 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval −7.0 to −2.7 and diastolic −3.5 mm Hg, −4.5 to −2.5). Conclusions Nurse led interventions for hypertension require an algorithm to structure care. Evidence was found of improved outcomes with nurse prescribers from non-UK healthcare settings. Good quality evidence from UK primary health care is insufficient to support widespread employment of nurses in the management of hypertension within such healthcare systems.

Background Previous studies have identified a substantial prevalence of a blood pressure difference between arms in various populations, but not patients with type 2 diabetes. Recognition of such a difference would be important as a potential cause of underestimation of blood pressure. Aim To measure prevalence of an inter-arm blood pressure difference in patients with type 2 diabetes, and to estimate how frequently blood pressure measurements could be erroneously underestimated if an inter-arm difference is unrecognised. Design of study Cross-sectional study. Setting Five surgeries covered by three general practices, Devon, England. Method Patients with type 2 diabetes underwent bilateral simultaneous blood pressure measurements using a validated protocol. Mean blood pressures were calculated for each arm to derive mean systolic and diastolic differences, and to estimate point prevalence of predefined magnitudes of difference. Results A total of 101 participants were recruited. Mean age was 66 years (standard deviation [SD] = 13.9 years); 59% were male, and mean blood pressure was 138/79 mmHg (SD = 15/10 mmHg). Ten participants (10%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 16) had a systolic inter-arm difference ≥10 mmHg; 29 (29%; 95% CI = 20 to 38) had a diastolic difference ≥5 mmHg; and three (3%; 95% CI = 0 to 6) a diastolic difference ≥10 mmHg. No confounding variable was observed to account for the magnitude of an inter-arm difference. Conclusion A systolic inter-arm difference ≥10 mmHg was observed in 10% of patients with diabetes. Failure to recognise this would misclassify half of these as normotensive rather than hypertensive using the lower-reading arm. New patients with type 2 diabetes should be screened for an inter-arm blood pressure difference.

Objectives of this study were to measure the prevalence of a difference in blood pressure (BP) between arms and determine whether a difference is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events or death. A prospective cohort study of 247 patients with hypertension was undertaken in one rural general practice in England. The main outcome measures were mean difference in BP between arms and new episodes of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event, onset of angina or peripheral vascular disease or death. A total of 57/247 (23%) patients had a mean difference in systolic BP between arms ofor=10 mm Hg and 8/247 (3%) had a mean difference ofor=20 mm Hg. A total of 15/247 (6%) patients had a mean difference in diastolic BP between arms ofor=10 mm Hg. Survival analysis after 4.7 years (range 3.3-5.9) showed a shorter mean survival time without event or death for patients with a difference in systolic BP ofor=10 mm Hg compared with a difference of10 mm Hg (3.7 (95% confidence interval, 3.2-4.2) versus 4.8 (4.6-5.1) years; P0.001; hazard ratio 2.5 (1.5-4.2), P=0.001). Difference in systolic BP ofor=10 mm Hg between arms is common in this primary care population and is associated with a shorter survival time to death or new cardiovascular event. Detection of a difference between arms may identify hypertensive patients at increased risk of cardiovascular events. Such an approach would allow more effective targeting of resources in primary prevention strategies.

Objective To determine the effectiveness of intensive structured care to optimise blood pressure control based on individual absolute risk targets in primary care. Design Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. Setting General practices throughout Australia, except Northern Territory, 2009-11. Participants Of 2185 patients from 119 general practices who were eligible for drug treatment for hypertension according to national guidelines 416 (19.0%) achieved their individual blood pressure target during a 28 day run-in period of monotherapy. After exclusions, 1562 participants not at target blood pressure (systolic 150 (SD 17) mm Hg, diastolic 88 (SD 11) mm Hg) were randomised (1:2 ratio) to usual care (n=524) or the intervention (n=1038). Intervention Computer assisted clinical profiling and risk target setting (all participants) with intensified follow-up and stepwise drug titration (initial angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy or two forms of combination therapy using angiotensin receptor blockers) for those randomised to the intervention. The control group received usual care. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was individual blood pressure target achieved at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were change in mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, absolute risk for cardiovascular disease within five years based on the Framingham risk score, and proportion and rate of adverse events. Results On an intention to treat basis, there was an 8.8% absolute difference in individual blood pressure target achieved at 26 weeks in favour of the intervention group compared with usual care group (358/988 (36.2%) v 138/504 (27.4%)): adjusted relative risk 1.28 (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.49, P=0.0013). There was also a 9.5% absolute difference in favour of the intervention group for achieving the classic blood pressure target of ≤140/90 mm Hg (627/988 (63.5%) v 272/504 (54.0%)): adjusted relative risk 1.18 (1.07 to 1.29, P

Objective To determine whether a difference in systolic blood pressure readings between arms can predict a reduced event free survival after 10 years. Design Cohort study. Setting Rural general practice in Devon, United Kingdom. Participants 230 people receiving treatment for hypertension in primary care. Intervention Bilateral blood pressure measurements recorded at three successive surgery attendances. Main outcome measures Cardiovascular events and deaths from all causes during a median follow-up of 9.8 years. Results At recruitment 24% (55/230) of participants had a mean interarm difference in systolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more and 9% (21/230) of 15 mm Hg or more; these differences were associated with an increased risk of all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 6.5 and 3.1, 1.6 to 6.0, respectively). The risk of death was also increased in 183 participants without pre-existing cardiovascular disease with an interarm difference in systolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more or 15 mm Hg or more (2.6, 1.4 to 4.8 and 2.7, 1.3 to 5.4). An interarm difference in diastolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more was weakly associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events or death. Conclusions Differences in systolic blood pressure between arms can predict an increased risk of cardiovascular events and all cause mortality over 10 years in people with hypertension. This difference could be a valuable indicator of increased cardiovascular risk. Bilateral blood pressure measurements should become a routine part of cardiovascular assessment in primary care.