Fujiwara Takeshi, Koshiaris Constantinos, Schwartz Claire L, Sheppard James P, Tomitani Naoko, Hoshide Satoshi, Kario Kazuomi, McManus Richard J
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University School of Medicine, Shimotsuke, Japan.
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
J Hum Hypertens. 2024 Dec;38(12):828-835. doi: 10.1038/s41371-024-00962-x. Epub 2024 Sep 29.
This study tested the hypothesis that differences in ethnicity impact the level of agreement between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and home BP (HBP) levels. A retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the UK and Japan was performed. Participants underwent office BP, daytime ABP, and HBP measurements. The ABP-HBP difference was compared between ethnic groups by multiple linear regression analysis. Diagnostic disagreement was defined as a disparity between the hypertension diagnoses obtained using ABP and HBP, since both measures share common thresholds of 135/85 mmHg for hypertension. Definite diagnostic disagreement was assigned where such a difference exceeded ±5 mmHg for either systolic BP (SBP) or diastolic BP (DBP). A total of 1 408 participants (age 62.1 ± 11.1 years, 48.6% males, 78.9% known hypertensive, White British 18.9%, South Asian 11.2%, African Caribbean 12.0%, Japanese 58.0%) were eligible. More Japanese participants showed higher ABP than HBP compared to White British: SBP + 3.09 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) + 1.14, +5.04 mmHg; DBP + 5.67 mmHg, 95%CI + 4.51, +6.84 mmHg. More Japanese participants than African Caribbean participants exhibited diagnostic disagreement in SBP (33.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.006). Furthermore, Japanese participants had a higher percentage of definite diagnostic disagreement in SBP compared to White British (9.3% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.040) and African Caribbean participants (9.3% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.018). In conclusion, Japanese participants showed greater disparity between ABP and HBP compared to White British participants. Complementary use of ABP and HBP monitoring may be more beneficial for assessing cardiovascular disease risk in Japanese participants compared to other ethnic groups.
种族差异会影响动态血压(ABP)与家庭血压(HBP)水平之间的一致性程度。对来自英国和日本的横断面数据进行了回顾性分析。参与者接受了诊室血压、日间ABP和HBP测量。通过多元线性回归分析比较了不同种族群体之间的ABP-HBP差异。诊断不一致被定义为使用ABP和HBP得出的高血压诊断结果之间的差异,因为这两种测量方法对于高血压的共同阈值均为135/85 mmHg。当收缩压(SBP)或舒张压(DBP)的这种差异超过±5 mmHg时,则判定为明确的诊断不一致。共有1408名参与者(年龄62.1±11.1岁,男性占48.6%,已知高血压患者占78.9%,英国白人占18.9%,南亚人占11.2%,非洲加勒比人占12.0%,日本人占58.0%)符合条件。与英国白人相比,更多的日本参与者显示ABP高于HBP:SBP高3.09 mmHg,95%置信区间(CI)为+1.14,+5.04 mmHg;DBP高5.67 mmHg,95%CI为+4.51,+6.84 mmHg。与非洲加勒比参与者相比,更多的日本参与者在SBP方面存在诊断不一致(33.2%对20.7%,p = 0.006)。此外,与英国白人(9.3%对4.5%,p = 0.040)和非洲加勒比参与者(9.3%对3.0%,p = 0.018)相比,日本参与者在SBP方面明确诊断不一致的比例更高。总之,与英国白人参与者相比,日本参与者的ABP和HBP之间的差异更大。与其他种族群体相比,对日本参与者补充使用ABP和HBP监测可能更有利于评估心血管疾病风险。