Risk Stratification by Self-Measured Home Blood Pressure across Categories of Conventional Blood Pressure: A Participant-Level Meta-Analysis

English version České info

Background:
The Global Burden of Diseases Study 2010 reported that hypertension is worldwide the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease, causing 9.4 million deaths annually. We examined to what extent self-measurement of home blood pressure (HBP) refines risk stratification across increasing categories of conventional blood pressure (CBP).

Methods and Findings:
This meta-analysis included 5,008 individuals randomly recruited from five populations (56.6% women; mean age, 57.1 y). All were not treated with antihypertensive drugs. In multivariable analyses, hazard ratios (HRs) associated with 10-mm Hg increases in systolic HBP were computed across CBP categories, using the following systolic/diastolic CBP thresholds (in mm Hg): optimal, <120/<80; normal, 120–129/80–84; high-normal, 130–139/85–89; mild hypertension, 140–159/90–99; and severe hypertension, ≥160/≥100.

Over 8.
3 y, 522 participants died, and 414, 225, and 194 had cardiovascular, cardiac, and cerebrovascular events, respectively. In participants with optimal or normal CBP, HRs for a composite cardiovascular end point associated with a 10-mm Hg higher systolic HBP were 1.28 (1.01–1.62) and 1.22 (1.00–1.49), respectively. At high-normal CBP and in mild hypertension, the HRs were 1.24 (1.03–1.49) and 1.20 (1.06–1.37), respectively, for all cardiovascular events and 1.33 (1.07–1.65) and 1.30 (1.09–1.56), respectively, for stroke. In severe hypertension, the HRs were not significant (p≥0.20). Among people with optimal, normal, and high-normal CBP, 67 (5.0%), 187 (18.4%), and 315 (30.3%), respectively, had masked hypertension (HBP≥130 mm Hg systolic or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic). Compared to true optimal CBP, masked hypertension was associated with a 2.3-fold (1.5–3.5) higher cardiovascular risk. A limitation was few data from low- and middle-income countries.

Conclusions:
HBP substantially refines risk stratification at CBP levels assumed to carry no or only mildly increased risk, in particular in the presence of masked hypertension. Randomized trials could help determine the best use of CBP vs. HBP in guiding BP management. Our study identified a novel indication for HBP, which, in view of its low cost and the increased availability of electronic communication, might be globally applicable, even in remote areas or in low-resource settings.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Risk Stratification by Self-Measured Home Blood Pressure across Categories of Conventional Blood Pressure: A Participant-Level Meta-Analysis. PLoS Med 11(1): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001591
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001591

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. ManciaG, De BackerG, DominiczakA, CifkovaR, FagardR, et al. (2007) 2007 guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 28: 1462–1536.

2. ChobanianAV, BakrisGL, BlackHR, CushmanWC, GreenLA, et al. (2003) Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 42: 1206–1252.

3. StaessenJA, ThijsL, OhkuboT, KikuyaM, RichartT, et al. (2008) Thirty years of research on diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for the self-measured blood pressure at home. Blood Press Monit 13: 352–365.

4. PickeringTG, Houston MillerN, OgedegbeG, KrakoffLR, ArtinianNT, et al. (2008) Call to action on use and reimbursement for home blood pressure monitoring. A joint scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. Hypertension 52: 10–29.

5. LopezAD, MathersCD, EzzatiM, JamisonDT, MurrayCJL (2006) Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 367: 1747–1757.

6. KearneyPM, WheltonM, ReynoldsK, MuntnerP, WheltonPK, et al. (2005) Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet 365: 217–223.

7. The Lancet (2013) Raising the pressure on hypertension. Lancet 381: 1157.

8. NiiranenTJ, ThijsL, AsayamaK, JohanssonJK, OhkuboT, et al. (2012) The International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDHOCO): moving from baseline characteristics to research perspectives. Hypertens Res 35: 1072–1079.

9. NiiranenTJ, AsayamaK, ThijsL, JohanssonJK, OhkuboT, et al. (2013) Outcome-driven thresholds for home blood pressure measurement: International Database for HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome. Hypertension 61: 27–34.

10. JuliusS, JamersonK, MejiaA, KrauseL, SchorkN, et al. (1990) The association of borderline hypertension with target organ changes and higher coronary risk: Tecumseh Blood Pressure study. JAMA 264: 354–358.

11. OhkuboT, ImaiY, TsujiI, NagaiK, KatoJ, et al. (1998) Home blood pressure measurement has a stronger predictive power for mortality than does screening blood pressure measurement: a population-based observation in Ohasama, Japan. J Hypertens 16: 971–975.

12. OkumiyaK, MatsubayashiK, WadaT, FujisawaA, OsakiY, et al. (1999) A U-shaped association between home systolic blood pressure and four-year mortality in community-dwelling older men. J Am Geriatr Soc 47: 1415–1421.

13. SchettiniC, BianchiM, NietoF, SandoyaE, SenraH (1999) Ambulatory blood pressure. Normality and comparison with other measurements. Hypertension 34: 818–825.

14. SegaR, FacchettiR, BombelliM, CesanaG, CorraoG, et al. (2005) Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population. Follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazione (PAMELA) Study. Circulation 111: 1777–1783.

15. StergiouGS, BaibasNM, KalogeropoulosPG (2007) Cardiovascular risk prediction on home blood pressure measurement: the Didima study. J Hypertens 25: 1590–1596.

16. NiuK, HozawaA, AwataS, GuoH, KuriyamaS, et al. (2008) Home blood pressure is associated with depressive symptoms in an elderly population aged 70 years and over: a population-based, cross-sectional analysis. Hypertens Res 31: 409–416.

17. NiiranenTJ, HänninenMR, JohanssonJ, ReunanenA, JulaAM (2010) Home-measured blood pressure is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular risk than office blood pressure. Hypertension 55: 1346–1351.

18. CacciolatiC, TzourioC, DufouilC, AlperovitchA, HanonO (2012) Feasibility of home blood pressure measurement in elderly individuals: cross-sectional analysis of a population-based sample. Am J Hypertens 25: 1279–1285.

19. PitsavosC, PanagiotakosDB, ChrysohoouC, StefanadisC (2003) Epidemiology of cardiovascular risk factors in Greece: aims, design and baseline characteristics of the ATTICA study. BMC Public Health 3: 32 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-3-32

20. PanagiotakosDB, PitsavosC, LentzasY, ChrysohoouC, StefanadisC (2007) Five-year incidence of hypertension and its determinants: the ATTICA study. J Hum Hypertens 21: 686–688.

21. American Diabetes Association (2013) Standards of medical care in diabetes—2013. Diabetes Care 36 (Suppl 1) S1–S66.

22. PierdomenicoSD, PannaraleG, RabbiaF, LapennaD, LicitraR, et al. (2008) Prognostic relevance of masked hypertension in subjects with prehypertension. Am J Hypertens 21: 879–883.

23. HansenTW, KikuyaM, ThijsL, Björklund-BodegårdK, KuznetsovaT, et al. (2007) Prognostic superiority of daytime ambulatory over conventional blood pressure in four populations: a meta-analysis of 7030 individuals. J Hypertens 25: 1554–1564.

24. FranklinSS, ThijsL, LiY, HansenTW, BoggiaJ, et al. (2013) Masked hypertension in diabetes mellitus: treatment implications for clinical practice. Hypertension 61: 964–971.

25. HänninenMRA, NiiranenTJ, PuukkaPJ, MattilaAK, JulaAM (2011) Determinants of masked hypertension in the general population: the Finn-Home study. J Hypertens 29: 1880–1888.

26. LewingtonS, ClarkeR, QizilbashN, PetoR, CollinsR (2002) Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 360: 1903–1913.

27. FukunagaH, OhkuboT, KobayashiM, TamakiY, KikuyaM, et al. (2008) Cost-effectiveness of the introduction of home blood pressure measurement in patients with office hypertension. J Hypertens 26: 685–690.

28. StaessenJA, ByttebierG, BuntinxF, CelisH, O'BrienET, et al. (1997) Antihypertensive treatment based on conventional or ambulatory blood pressure measurement. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 278: 1065–1072.

29. StaessenJA, Den HondE, CelisH, FagardR, KearyL, et al. (2004) Antihypertensive treatment based on blood pressure measurement at home or in the physician's office. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 291: 955–964.

30. SacksHS, BerrierJ, ReitmanD, Ancona-BerkVA, ChalmersTC (1987) Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 316: 450–455.

31. StewartLA, ParmarMKB (1993) Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet 341: 418–422.

32. HelisE, AugustincicL, SteinerS, ChenL, TurtonP, et al. (2011) Time trends in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in the ‘old’ and ‘new’ European Union countries. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehab 18: 347–359.

33. VieraAJ, HinderliterAL, KshirsagarAV, FineJ, DominikR (2010) Reproducibility of masked hypertension in adults with untreated borderline office blood pressure: comparison of ambulatory and home monitoring. Am J Hypertens 23: 1190–1197.

34. Ben-DovIZ, Ben-ArieL, MeklerJ, BursztynM (2007) Reproducibility of white-coat and masked hypertension in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Int J Cardiol 117: 355–359.

35. ParatiG, KilamaMO, FainiA, FacelliE, OchenK, et al. (2010) A new solar-powered blood pressure measuring device for low-resource settings. Hypertension 56: 1047–1053.