ABSTRACT
Introducción: La hipertensión es el factor de riesgo más importante para la muerte cardiovascular a nivel mundial. En Argentina cerca del 44% de las personas desconocen ser hipertensos, y posiblemente sea debido a que no se les mide de la presión arterial (PA) en la consulta médica. Nuestra hipótesis es que la medición y el registro de la PA (MRPA) es omitida durante la consulta médica en Argentina. Objetivo: Determinar la frecuencia de MRPA en la consulta médica en Argentina. Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico, retrospectivo de punto de prevalencia. Se analizaron todas las consultas externas realizadas el 19/09/2019 en mayores de 18 años, en 9 instituciones sanitarias de Argentina y se evaluó la MRPA. Resultados: Se analizaron 2.982 consultas. La edad promedio fue de 52,1 años (18-103), 1.780 (59,7%) eran mujeres y 702 (36,1%) tenían antecedentes de hipertensión arterial (HTA). La PA se midió y registró en 420 consultas (14,1%; IC 95%: 12,8-15,4). En un modelo de regresión logística multivariado el antecedente de HTA (OR: 1,91; p<0,001) y de enfermedad cardiovascular (OR: 1,76; p<0,001) fueron las variables que más se asociaron a la MRPA. La presencia de cáncer se asoció un descenso de MRPA (OR: 0,51; p<0,01). Cardiología fue la especialidad que más midió la PA 49,5% (144/291 consultas), seguida por clínica médica 30% (152/507 consultas). Conclusión: La MRPA en la consulta médica ambulatoria es deficitaria y constituye una oportunidad perdida en salud. Se necesitan estrategias que mejoren la detección y el control de la HTA.
Introduction: Hypertension (HTN) is the leading cause of mortality and disability in the world. In Argentina, almost 44% of hypertensives do not know about their condition and this may be due to the low rate of blood pressure (BP) measurements during the office visit. Our hypothesis is that the measurement and electronic recording of BP (BPMR) is not a routine practice in Argentina. Objective: To describe the rate of office BP measurement in Argentina. Methods: This is a retrospective, multicentre, point prevalence study. We analysed all office visits on 9/19/2019 at 9 medical institutions in 6 provinces of Argentina. Results: Two thousand and eighty-two office visits were analysed. The patients mean age was 52.1 years (18-103), 1790 (59.7%) were female, and 702 (36.1%) were hypertensives. BP was measured in 420 visits (14.1%; 95% CI 12.8-15.4). In a multivariate logistic regression model, history of HTN (OR 1.91, P<.001) and previous cardiovascular event (OR 1.76, P<.001) were associated with more odds of BPMR. The presence of cancer was associated with fewer odds of BPMR (OR .51, P<.01). Cardiology measured BP up to 49.5% (144/291 visits), followed by internal medicine 30% (152/507 visits). Conclusion: BPMR during office visits is deficient in Argentina and represents a missed healthcare opportunity. Different strategies are needed to detect hypertensive patients and reduce cardiovascular events.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Young Adult , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Hypertension/complications , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/epidemiology , Arterial Pressure , Retrospective Studies , Records , Blood Pressure DeterminationABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Hypertension (HTN) is the leading cause of mortality and disability in the world. In Argentina, almost 44% of hypertensives do not know about their condition and this may be due to the low rate of blood pressure (BP) measurements during the office visit. Our hypothesis is that the measurement and electronic recording of BP (BPMR) is not a routine practice in Argentina. OBJECTIVE: To describe the rate of office BP measurement in Argentina. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicentre, point prevalence study. We analysed all office visits on 9/19/2019 at 9 medical institutions in 6 provinces of Argentina. RESULTS: Two thousand and eighty-two office visits were analysed. The patients' mean age was 52.1 years (18-103), 1790 (59.7%) were female, and 702 (36.1%) were hypertensives. BP was measured in 420 visits (14.1%; 95% CI 12.8-15.4). In a multivariate logistic regression model, history of HTN (OR 1.91, P<.001) and previous cardiovascular event (OR 1.76, P<.001) were associated with more odds of BPMR. The presence of cancer was associated with fewer odds of BPMR (OR .51, P<.01). Cardiology measured BP up to 49.5% (144/291 visits), followed by internal medicine 30% (152/507 visits). CONCLUSION: BPMR during office visits is deficient in Argentina and represents a missed healthcare opportunity. Different strategies are needed to detect hypertensive patients and reduce cardiovascular events.
Subject(s)
Blood Pressure Determination , Hypertension , Blood Pressure , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Female , Humans , Hypertension/complications , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Abstract: Objective: The level of agreement between two blood pressure (BP) reading methods, auscultatory vs oscillometric, was examined using a mercury sphygmomanometer and an electronic device in children and adolescents with different levels of obesity. The readings were compared to determine their impact on the diagnosis of pre-hypertension/hypertension. Methods: Blood pressure readings were taken in children with obesity (body mass index ≥ 95th percentile) and severe obesity (≥120% 95th percentile). Bland-Altman analysis and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient were used to determine the agreement between measurements. Results: The mercury sphygmomanometer readings were lower than those obtained with the electronic device for both systolic and diastolic BP (P = .01 and P = .001, respectively). The mean systolic and diastolic BP differences between the oscillometric vs first mercury reading were 4.2/10.2 mm Hg, respectively. A large difference was observed between the BP measurement methods. The ICC showed regular to moderate reliability for the systolic BP (.595), but poor for the diastolic BP (.330). Screening using the first of three mercury measurements showed that 10.4% of the children and adolescents had BPs within the pre-hypertension/hypertension range. This was reduced to 5.2% when the mean of three mercury readings was used. Conclusions: Large discrepancies were observed in both the systolic and diastolic BP. These differences are not clinically acceptable as to consider the two instruments interchangeable. The electronic device readings were higher, and they overestimated the diagnosis of hypertension. © 2017 Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez. Published by Masson Doyma Mèxico S.A. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Resumen: Objetivo: Para conocer el grado de concordancia entre 2 métodos de medición de presión arterial (PA), auscultatorio vs oscilométrico se utilizó un esfigmomanómetro de mercurio y un dispositivo electrónico en niños y adolescentes con diferentes grados de obesidad. Las lecturas fueron comparadas para conocer su impacto en el diagnóstico de prehipertensión/hipertensión. Método: Se midió la PA a niños con obesidad (percentil 95 del índice masa corporal) y obesidad severa (120% del percentil 95). Utilizamos análisis de Bland-Altman y Coeficiente de Correlación Intraclase (CCI) para conocer acuerdo entre mediciones. Resultados: Las lecturas con esfigmomanómetro de mercurio fueron más bajas que con el electrónico para la PA sistólica y diastólica (p = 0.01 y 0.001, respectivamente). El promedio de las diferencias en sistólica y diastólica entre oscilométrico vs. primera medición con mercurio fue de 4.2/10.2 mm Hg respectivamente. Se observó una gran diferencia de las mediciones entre los métodos de medición de PA. El CCI mostró una confiabilidad regular a moderada para la sistólica (0.595) pero pobre para la diastólica (0.330). El tamizaje con una medición mediante mercurio mostró que el 10.4% de los niños y adolescentes tenían PA en el rango de prehipertensión/hipertensión, pero se redujo a un 5.2% con el promedio de 3 mediciones. Conclusiones: Se observaron grandes discrepancias en la PA sistólica y diastólica. Tales diferencias no son clínicamente aceptables como para considerar equivalentes los 2 instrumentos. Las mediciones realizadas en este estudio con dispositivo electrónico fueron más altas y sobre estimaron el diagnóstico de hipertensión. © 2017 Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez. Publicado por Masson Doyma México S.A. Este es un artículo Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child, Preschool , Child , Adolescent , Oscillometry , Auscultation , Blood Pressure Determination/methods , Pediatric Obesity/complications , Hypertension/complications , Hypertension/diagnosis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Sphygmomanometers , Prehypertension/complications , Prehypertension/diagnosisABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The level of agreement between two blood pressure (BP) reading methods, auscultatory vs oscillometric, was examined using a mercury sphygmomanometer and an electronic device in children and adolescents with different levels of obesity. The readings were compared to determine their impact on the diagnosis of pre-hypertension/hypertension. METHODS: Blood pressure readings were taken in children with obesity (body mass index ≥ 95th percentile) and severe obesity (≥120% 95th percentile). Bland-Altman analysis and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient were used to determine the agreement between measurements. RESULTS: The mercury sphygmomanometer readings were lower than those obtained with the electronic device for both systolic and diastolic BP (P=.01 and P=.001, respectively). The mean systolic and diastolic BP differences between the oscillometric vs first mercury reading were 4.2/10.2mmHg, respectively. A large difference was observed between the BP measurement methods. The ICC showed regular to moderate reliability for the systolic BP (.595), but poor for the diastolic BP (.330). Screening using the first of three mercury measurements showed that 10.4% of the children and adolescents had BPs within the pre-hypertension/hypertension range. This was reduced to 5.2% when the mean of three mercury readings was used. CONCLUSIONS: Large discrepancies were observed in both the systolic and diastolic BP. These differences are not clinically acceptable as to consider the two instruments interchangeable. The electronic device readings were higher, and they overestimated the diagnosis of hypertension.
