Home blood pressure self-measurement: “Current situation and new perspectives” / Automedidas domiciliarias de presión arterial: «situación actual y nuevas perspectivas»

The method typically used to diagnose and monitor hypertensive patients has been to measure blood pressure in the physician's surgery; however, it is a well-known fact that this approach poses certain drawbacks, such as observer bias, failure to detect an alert reaction in the clinic, etc., difficulties that affect its accuracy as a diagnostic method.In recent years, the varying international scientific societies have persistently recommended the use of blood pressure measurements outside the clinic (at home or in the outpatient setting), using validated automatic devices. Data from some studies suggest that if we rely solely on in-office measurements, approximately 15–20% of the time we may be wrong when making decisions, both in terms of diagnosis and patient follow-up.Home blood pressure measurements are a simple and very affordable method that has a similar reproducibility and prognostic value as ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, the availability of which is currently very limited. Moreover, ambulatory self-measurements have the significant benefit of being able to improve control of hypertensive individuals.Healthcare professionals and patients should be aware of the methodology of home blood pressure measurement, its usefulness and limitations. (AU)

El método utilizado habitualmente para el diagnóstico y seguimiento de los pacientes hipertensos ha sido la medida de la presión arterial en la consulta, pero es un hecho conocido que este método plantea problemas (sesgos del observador, no detecta reacción de alerta en consulta…) que afectan a su precisión como método diagnóstico.Las diferentes sociedades científicas internacionales, en los últimos años, recomiendan de forma insistente el uso de medidas de presión arterial fuera de la consulta (domiciliarias o ambulatorias) con aparatos automáticos validados para tomar decisiones. Datos de algunos estudios sugieren que si solo utilizamos las medidas de la consulta nos podemos equivocar en torno a un 15-20% de las veces que tomemos decisiones en el diagnóstico y seguimiento de los pacientes.Las medidas domiciliarias de presión arterial son un método sencillo y muy accesible que tienen una reproducibilidad y valor pronóstico similar al de las medidas ambulatorias, cuya disponibilidad actualmente e muy limitada, y que además tienen una utilidad importante que es la posibilidad de mejora del control de los hipertensos.Los profesionales sanitarios y los pacientes deben conocer la metodología de uso de la medida de presión arterial domiciliaria y sus utilidades y limitaciones. (AU)

Home blood pressure self-measurement: "Current situation and new perspectives".

The method typically used to diagnose and monitor hypertensive patients has been to measure blood pressure in the physician's surgery; however, it is a well-known fact that this approach poses certain drawbacks, such as observer bias, failure to detect an alert reaction in the clinic, etc., difficulties that affect its accuracy as a diagnostic method. In recent years, the varying international scientific societies have persistently recommended the use of blood pressure measurements outside the clinic (at home or in the outpatient setting), using validated automatic devices. Data from some studies suggest that if we rely solely on in-office measurements, approximately 15-20% of the time we may be wrong when making decisions, both in terms of diagnosis and patient follow-up. Home blood pressure measurements are a simple and very affordable method that has a similar reproducibility and prognostic value as ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, the availability of which is currently very limited. Moreover, ambulatory self-measurements have the significant benefit of being able to improve control of hypertensive individuals. Healthcare professionals and patients should be aware of the methodology of home blood pressure measurement, its usefulness and limitations.

¿Han influido el algoritmo de prescripción de la Administración y las guías de manejo de la dislipemia de la ACC/AHA 2013 en el manejo de la dislipemia? Proyecto MEJORA-LO CV / Have the Government's prescription algorithm and the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for managing dyslipidaemia influenced the management of dyslipidaemia? The MEJORALO-CV Project

OBJETIVO: Conocer el manejo de la dislipemia en atención primaria tras la publicación de la Guía de la American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) del año 2013 y el algoritmo de la Administración. MÉTODO: Estudio transversal descriptivo con encuesta a médicos de atención primaria de la Comunidad Valenciana entre enero y octubre de 2016. RESULTADOS: Participaron 199 facultativos con una media (desviación típica) de 48,9 (11) años de edad y 21,3 (11,1) años de experiencia. Las guías más seguidas eran las de la European Society of Cardiology (37,5%) y las de la Administración (23,4%). El 6,3% seguía la de la ACC/AHA 2013. El 88% establecía objetivos según colesterol LDL y riesgo cardiovascular. La elección del hipolipemiante estaba basada en su capacidad reductora de colesterol LDL (28,6%), algoritmo de la Administración (23,4%) y seguridad (20,4%). Estatinas, ezetimiba y fibratos eran los hipolipemiantes preferidos, y la combinación (51%) e incremento de dosis (35%) las estrategias en ausencia de control. Se determinaba perfil lipídico, transaminasas y creatincinasa cada 6 (59,5; 52,3 y 54,3%, respectivamente) o 12 meses (25,1; 29,2 y 30,3%, respectivamente). Un 41% era conocedor de la polémica con la Guía ACC/AHA 2013, y aunque un 60% reconocía su relevancia, solo un 21% modificó su quehacer diario por ella. CONCLUSIONES: El algoritmo de la Administración tuvo mayor impacto que la Guía ACC/AHA 2013 en atención primaria. Campos de mejora fueron el bajo uso de guías y tablas de riesgo validadas, y racionalización de la periodicidad de las analíticas

OBJECTIVE: To determine the management of dyslipidaemia in primary care after the publication of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2013 guidelines and Valencian government's algorithm. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study that employed a survey of primary care physicians of the Community of Valencia between January and October 2016. RESULTS: A total of 199 physicians (mean age, 48.9±11.0 years; experience, 21.3±11.1 years) participated in the survey. The most followed guidelines were those of the European Society of Cardiology (37.5% of respondents) and Valencian government (23.4% of respondents). Some 6.3% of the respondents followed the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, and 88.0% established objectives based on LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. The choice of lipid-lowering drug was based on its LDL cholesterol lowering capacity (28.6% of respondents), on the Valencian government's algorithm (23.4%) and on the drug's safety (20.4%). Statins, ezetimibe and fibrates were the preferred hypolipemiant agents, and their combination (51% of respondents) and dosage increases (35%) were the strategies employed for poor control. Lipid profile and transaminase and creatine kinase levels were measured every 6 (59.5%, 52.3% and 54.3% of respondents, respectively) or 12 months (25.1%, 29.2% and 30.3%, respectively). Forty-one percent of the respondents were aware of the controversy surrounding the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. Although 60% of the respondents acknowledged its relevance, only 21% changed their daily practices accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The Valencian government's algorithm had a greater impact than the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines in primary care in Valencia. Areas for improvement included the low use of validated guidelines and risk tables and the streamlining of laboratory test periodicity

Have the Government's prescription algorithm and the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for managing dyslipidaemia influenced the management of dyslipidaemia? The MEJORALO-CV Project. / ¿Han influido el algoritmo de prescripción de la Administración y las guías de manejo de la dislipemia de la ACC/AHA 2013 en el manejo de la dislipemia? Proyecto MEJORA-LO CV.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the management of dyslipidaemia in primary care after the publication of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2013 guidelines and Valencian government's algorithm. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study that employed a survey of primary care physicians of the Community of Valencia between January and October 2016. RESULTS: A total of 199 physicians (mean age, 48.9±11.0 years; experience, 21.3±11.1 years) participated in the survey. The most followed guidelines were those of the European Society of Cardiology (37.5% of respondents) and Valencian government (23.4% of respondents). Some 6.3% of the respondents followed the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, and 88.0% established objectives based on LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. The choice of lipid-lowering drug was based on its LDL cholesterol lowering capacity (28.6% of respondents), on the Valencian government's algorithm (23.4%) and on the drug's safety (20.4%). Statins, ezetimibe and fibrates were the preferred hypolipemiant agents, and their combination (51% of respondents) and dosage increases (35%) were the strategies employed for poor control. Lipid profile and transaminase and creatine kinase levels were measured every 6 (59.5%, 52.3% and 54.3% of respondents, respectively) or 12 months (25.1%, 29.2% and 30.3%, respectively). Forty-one percent of the respondents were aware of the controversy surrounding the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. Although 60% of the respondents acknowledged its relevance, only 21% changed their daily practices accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The Valencian government's algorithm had a greater impact than the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines in primary care in Valencia. Areas for improvement included the low use of validated guidelines and risk tables and the streamlining of laboratory test periodicity.

Analysing the concept of diagnostic inertia in hypertension: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to quantify diagnostic inertia (DI) when the physician fails to diagnose hypertension and determine its associated factors. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational study involved all patients without a diagnosis of hypertension who had their blood pressure (BP) measured at least three times during the second half of 2010 (N = 48,605). Patients with altered mean BP figures (≥ 140/90 mmHg) were considered to experience DI. Secondary variables: gender, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease, age and the physician having attended a cardiovascular training course (ESCARVAL). Associated factors were assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Diagnostic inertia was present in 6450 patients (13.3%, 95% CI: 13.0-13.6%). Factors significantly associated with DI were: male gender (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.37-1.55, p < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58-0.92, p = 0.007), the ESCARVAL cardiovascular course (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.96, p = 0.005), diabetes mellitus (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99, p = 0.016), cardiovascular disease (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.88, p < 0.001) and older age (years) (18-44→OR = 1; 45-59→OR = 12.45, 95% CI: 11.11-13.94; 60-74→OR = 18.11, 95% CI: 16.30-20.12; ≥ 75→OR = 20.43, 95% CI: 18.34-22.75; p < 0.001). The multivariate model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80-0.81, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study will help clinical researchers differentiate between the two forms of DI (interpretation of a positive screening test and interpretation of positive diagnostic criteria). The results found here in patients with hypertension suggest that this problem is prevalent, and that a set of associated factors can explain the outcome well (AUC>0.80).

Medida de la presión arterial en el domicilio de pacientes hipertensos: ¿hay diferencias entre las lecturas registradas por el propio paciente o por un familiar? / Home blood pressure measurement of hypertensive patients: are there differences between self-measured readings ant those taken by family members?

Introducción. Es necesario tener mayor información sobre la medida de la presión arterial (PA) en el domicilio de los pacientes diagnosticados de hipertensión arterial (HTA), lo que incluye considerar el registro por personas ajenas a los propios pacientes. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar las diferencias de PA en domicilio según se mida ésta por el propio paciente o por un familiar. Material y métodos. Estudio transversal y multicéntrico realizado en Atención Primaria en una muestra consecutiva de pacientes hipertensos mayores de 17 años tratados con dieta o con fármacos antihipertensivos al menos desde 6 semanas antes de su inclusión. Los pacientes y sus familiares fueron entrenados en la automedida de PA (AMPA) con un monitor electrónico validado para realizar medidas en su domicilio durante 5 días de la misma semana. Los días primero, tercero y quinto la medición la realizaba el propio paciente y los días segundo y cuarto un familiar. Cada día se midió la PA por la mañana y por la noche (promedio de dos tomas separadas 5 minutos). Para el análisis de los datos se excluyeron las medidas del primer día. Resultados. Se incluyeron 243 pacientes (53,8 por ciento mujeres) con una edad media (DE) de 58,6 (12,9) años. Los valores medios de la PA sistólica (PAS) registrados por los pacientes fueron de 137,9 ñ 17,4 mmHg y los registrados por los familiares de 137,9ñ16,9 mmHg (p=0,953). Los valores medios de PA diastólica (PAD) registrados por los pacientes fueron de 82,7ñ9,1 mmHg y los registrados por los familiares de 82,3 ñ 9,1 mmHg (p = 0,095). No se encontraron diferencias cuando se compararon las medidas tomadas por un familiar o por el paciente en cada sexo, diabéticos, obesos, fumadores, hipercolesterolémicos, pacientes con antecedentes de enfermedad cardiovascular o tratamiento con o sin fármacos antihipertensivos. Conclusiones. En pacientes hipertensos de Atención Primaria entrenados para realizar AMPA los valores de la PA obtenidos en el domicilio por los propios pacientes no son diferentes a los registrados por los familiares (AU)