Félix-Redondo Francisco J, Fernández-Bergés Daniel, Espinosa-Garcia Jacinto, Pozuelos-Estrada Jerónimo, Molina-Martínez Luis M, Pérez-Castán José F, Ríos-Rivera José, Valiente-Rubio José I, Gómez-de-la-Cámara Agustín, Rodríguez-Pascual Nieves
Villanueva 1 Health Centre, Extremadura Health Service, Villanueva de la Serena, Spain.
Cardiol J. 2009;16(1):57-67.
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.
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.
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.
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.
旨在确定相比于在医生办公室进行常规血压测量,采用家庭自测血压和动态血压监测时,血压得到最佳控制的高血压患者数量是否更多。
对来自西班牙巴达霍斯的237名已知患有高血压的初级卫生保健患者的随机样本进行一项观察性、横断面、多中心描述性研究。在医生办公室和通过家庭自测测量血压。那些通过家庭自测显示血压控制良好的患者接受24小时动态血压监测。最佳控制被理解为在医生办公室测量时血压<140/90 mmHg,在家自测和日间动态血压监测时血压<135/85 mmHg。
在医生办公室和通过家庭自测的平均收缩压/舒张压测量值分别为145.6/83.9和134.0/78.7 mmHg(p<0.000)。在通过家庭自测实现最佳控制并随后接受动态血压监测的人群中,平均血压分别为121.8/73.4和125.6/76.2 mmHg(p = 0.002;p<0.000)。在医生办公室测量时,约29.5%(95%CI 23.7 - 35.3%)的患者血压得到控制,家庭自测时为38%(95%CI 31.4 - 44.2%;p<0.000),通过动态血压监测确认时为24.5%(95%CI 15.4 - 33.6%)。医生办公室测量对于检测通过家庭自测血压控制良好的患者的敏感性和阳性预测值分别为50%和64.3%,对于动态血压监测分别为53.4%和73.8%。
在未通过动态血压监测确认的情况下,家庭自测能实现更高水平的血压控制。因此,白大衣效应似乎并未影响在医生办公室检测到的血压控制良好患者的比例。医生办公室测量的血压似乎无助于区分哪些个体患者得到了最佳控制。