Search

We have explored the use and interpretation of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) among clinicians at an Edinburgh Cardiovascular Risk Clinic and among a group of international experts in blood pressure monitoring. Locally, we were able to demonstrate major discrepancies in management advice between doctors and nurses. Although all of the international experts used ABPM regularly, they did not agree on thresholds levels for treatment or target BP. This gives food for thought as we consider how to advise internists and primary care physicians on the use and interpretation of ABPM.

The use of electronic measurement of blood pressure and, in particular, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring offers the opportunity to determine which patients with apparent hypertension have truly sustained elevation of their blood pressure levels. Given the high prevalence of hypertension and the even larger number of individuals who appear to be hypertensive but may not be so, it is difficult to deliver ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to all individuals who might benefit from it. In Edinburgh, Scotland, we have piloted a system of direct access ambulatory blood pressure monitoring whereby physicians in primary care can request of the hospital service, an ambulatory monitor on their patient without the patients attending a formal hospital clinic. In the 7 years since the service was first instituted, almost 6,000 monitors have been performed with referrals running at approximately 100 per month in recent times. The present study was set up to assess the impact of the ambulatory monitor result on clinical decision making in primary care. The referral form invited primary care physicians to indicate their planned management if an ambulatory monitor had not been available and we thereafter audited patient records to determine what ultimately happened following the advice given on the basis of the ambulatory monitoring record.A random sample of results was obtained on untreated patients and approximately 500 were analysed. It was clear that if the advice to the primary care physician based upon the ABPM was not to treat, that this was largely followed with some 94% of patients not receiving treatment within 3 months of the monitor. If, however, the advice given was to start treatment, this was less reliably followed and in only 76% of patients treatment was started within 3 months. At the time of the audit this figure had increased to 82%. Primary care physicians had indicated that they would have treated 60% of the individuals referred and in reality only treated 40%. The potential saving in drug costs from the reduction by 20% of those treated would have significant impact on health care budgets.

Aims: The British Hypertension Society (BHS) has recommended that, for people with diabetes, the target 'clinic' blood pressure should be < 140/80 mmHg. Ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure (ABPM) is used widely in the assessment of hypertension and the BHS has recommended that the target 'awake' ambulatory blood pressure for people with diabetes should be < 130/75 mmHg. The purpose of the present study was to determine the utility of ABPM in the assessment of hypertension in patients with diabetes, over and above a careful 'clinic' measurement of blood pressure., Methods: The records of 540 patients with diabetes who underwent ABPM (using SpaceLabs monitors) were retrospectively analysed. With respect to current BHS recommendations, the positive and negative predictive values of 'clinic' blood pressure (measured by trained nurses using mercury sphygmomanometers) on 'awake' ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) were calculated., Results: The positive predictive value of the 'clinic' BP, its ability to detect patients whose ABP was above BHS targets, was 99%. The negative predictive value of 'clinic' blood pressure was 27%., Conclusions: With regard to current BHS guidelines, ABPM is generally unnecessary in the assessment of hypertension in patients with diabetes, provided careful 'clinic' measurements of blood pressure are made.

1. We evaluated the relative efficacies and tolerability of various low-dose combinations of nicardipine and propranolol in patients with mild-moderate essential hypertension (DBP Phase V of greater than 90-125 mmHg; WHO Grades I and II) in order to select the best one. 2. Sixty patients completed the double-blind, balanced, randomised three-way cross-over protocol, with each phase lasting 4 weeks, and in which twice daily nicardipine 40 mg or propranolol 80 mg was compared with four twice daily combinations of nicardipine (20 or 30 mg) plus propranolol (40 or 80 mg). 3. At 'peak' effect time (i.e., 2 h post-dosing) all four treatment combinations were significantly more effective than propranolol, with effects ranging from 9-23 mmHg (systolic) and 5-15 mmHg (diastolic). Only the two 30 mg nicardipine combinations with propranolol were more effective than nicardipine monotherapy, further reducing BP by 8-13 mmHg (systolic) and 5-7 mmHg (diastolic); there were no significant differences between them. 4. 'Trough' diastolic pressures were not different between treatments and 'trough' BP control was sub-optimal on all treatments. 5. 70% of patients on nicardipine monotherapy, 33% of those on propranolol monotherapy and 30% of patients during the placebo run-in complained of symptoms. In terms of complaint rates, there was little to choose between the four combinations (27-33%). Serum potassium and creatinine levels were elevated following propranolol monotherapy by 0.19 mmol 1-1 and 6.5 mumol 1-1 respectively (P less than 0.01 for both) and following the nicardipine 30 mg/propranolol 80 mg combination. Nicardipine monotherapy elevated serum T4 levels by an average of 0.57 ng dl-1 (P less than 0.05). 6. The twice daily combination of nicardipine 30 mg plus propranolol 40 mg was therefore the optimum one in terms of its efficacy and tolerability. Further studies need to be performed to test the hypothesis that a higher dose of propranolol might ameliorate troublesome vasodilator side effects. However, none of the treatments studied was ideal for clinical use in the twice daily dosage used in this study.

Focuses on guidelines of the British Hypertension Society regarding ambulatory blood pressure monitoring targets. Impact of the targets on physicians.