[Normal values in self-blood pressure measurement in relation to the presence of target organ disease. Data from the VAMPAHICA study]. / Valores de normalidad de la automedida de la presión arterial en relación con la presencia de lesión en los órganos diana. Datos del estudio VAMPAHICA.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: International guides of hypertension (HT) recommend self-blood -pressure-measurement (SBPM) values higher than 135/85 mmHg to determine isolated clinical hypertension (ICH). This paper suggests a lower cut-off. PATIENTS AND METHOD: This prospective, protocol-based study included 378 patients, 250 new hypertensive patients without previous treatment. Both SBPM and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were measured in all patients. Risk factors and target organ disease (TOD) were evaluated by electrocardiography, renal function, microalbuminuria and retinography. RESULTS: With a 135/85 mmHg ICH cut-off, only differences in serum creatinine levels (78.67 ICH vs 83.98 micromol/l sustained HT -SHT-; p = 0.03), grade I/II fundus oculi (FO) lesions (44.7 vs 62.8%; p = 0.009) and any FO lesions (48.2 vs 67.4%; p = 0.005) were found. With a ICH cut-off of 130/80 mmHg, a lower risk of grade III/IV FO lesions was found (RR = 0.59; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.96; p = 0.06). Any TOD risk was related to SHT with a 130/85 mmHg cut-off (RR = 12.04; 90% CI, 1.03-140.28; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Taking a 135/85 mmHg ICH cut-off, no differences in TOD between ICH and SHT were found. Taking a 130 mmHg ICH systolic blood pressure (SBP) cut-off, those who are below 130 mmHg have a lower risk of grade III/IV FO lesions. Those who are above this value have a higher TOD risk. Looking at TOD risk, we should consider a < 130 mmHg SBP cut-off for ICH diagnosis.

Valores de normalidad de la automedida de la presión arterial en relación con la presencia de lesión en los órganos diana. Datos del estudio VAMPAHICA / Normal values in self-blood pressure measurement in relation to the presence of target organ disease. Data from the VAMPAHICA study

Fundamento y objetivo: Las guías internacionales de hipertensión arterial (HTA) recomiendan valores de automedida de la presión arterial (AMPA) con un punto de corte de 135/85 mmHg para diagnosticar hipertensión clínica aislada (HCA). En este artículo se defiende un punto de corte inferior. Pacientes y método: Estudio prospectivo protocolizado con 378 pacientes que incluyó a 250 hipertensos de nuevo diagnóstico sin tratamiento. Se efectuó AMPA y monitorización de la presión arterial a todos los pacientes. Se evaluaron los factores de riesgo y la lesión en órganos diana (LOD) mediante electrocardiograma, función renal, microalbuminuria y retinografía. Resultados: El punto de corte de 135/85 mmHg sólo muestra diferencias en los valores de creatinina sérica (78,67 en HCA frente a 83,98 mmol/l en HTA mantenida [HTAM]; p = 0,03), en las lesiones grado I/II del fondo de ojo (FO) (el 44,7 frente al 62,8%; p = 0,009) y en la presencia de cualquier lesión en el FO (el 48,2 frente al 67,4%; p = 0,005). Con menor significación estadística, el menor riesgo de lesiones grado III/IV en el FO se observó en los HCA, con un punto de corte de 130/80 mmHg (riesgo relativo [RR] = 0,59; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 90%, 0,36-0,96; p = 0,06). El mayor riesgo de cualquier LOD se observó en los pacientes con HTAM con un punto de corte de 130/85 mmHg (RR = 12,04; IC del 90%, 1,03-140,28; p = 0,09). Conclusiones: El punto de corte de 135/85 mmHg no muestra diferencias en la presencia de LOD entre pacientes con HCA y HTAM. Para un punto de corte de 130 mmHg de presión arterial sistólica, aquellos por debajo de 130 mmHg presentan menor riesgo de lesiones grado III/IV en el FO. Aquellos por encima de 130 mmHg presentan mayor riesgo de cualquier LOD. Si se define la HCA por la probabilidad de presentar LOD, cabe plantearse un punto de corte de AMPA inferior a 130 mmHg de presión arterial sistólica

Background and objective: International guides of hypertension (HT) recommend self-blood -pressure-measurement (SBPM) values higher than 135/85 mmHg to determine isolated clinical hypertension (ICH). This paper suggests a lower cut-off. Patients and method: This prospective, protocol-based study included 378 patients, 250 new hypertensive patients without previous treatment. Both SBPM and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were measured in all patients. Risk factors and target organ disease (TOD) were evaluated by electrocardiography, renal function, microalbuminuria and retinography. Results: With a 135/85 mmHg ICH cut-off, only differences in serum creatinine levels (78.67 ICH vs 83.98 mmol/l sustained HT ­SHT­; p = 0.03), grade I/II fundus oculi (FO) lesions (44.7 vs 62.8%; p = 0.009) and any FO lesions (48.2 vs 67.4%; p = 0.005) were found. With a ICH cut-off of 130/80 mmHg, a lower risk of grade III/IV FO lesions was found (RR = 0.59; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.96; p = 0.06). Any TOD risk was related to SHT with a 130/85 mmHg cut-off (RR = 12.04; 90% CI, 1.03-140.28; p = 0.09). Conclusions: Taking a 135/85 mmHg ICH cut-off, no differences in TOD between ICH and SHT were found. Taking a 130 mmHg ICH systolic blood pressure (SBP) cut-off, those who are below 130 mmHg have a lower risk of grade III/IV FO lesions. Those who are above this value have a higher TOD risk. Looking at TOD risk, we should consider a < 130 mmHg SBP cut-off for ICH diagnosis

Does blood pressure change in treated hypertensive patients depending on whether it is measured by a physician or a nurse?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there are differences between blood pressure (BP) measured by the nurse (NBP), BP measured by the physician (PBP) and self-measured BP in treated hypertensive patients and, if found, to evaluate their clinical importance. METHOD: An observational study is carried out with hypertensive patients recruited from two village-based community health centres in Catalonia (Spain) serving an area with a total population of 2800 inhabitants. All patients treated for hypertension visiting the health centre on a specific day of the week and during the same timetable between October 2000 and May 2001 were included. RESULTS: The difference between physician-systolic BP and nurse-systolic BP was 5.16 mmHg (95% CI 2.62-7.7; p<0.001). The difference between physician-systolic BP and self-measured systolic BP was 4.67 mmHg (95% CI 0.89-8.44; p=0.016). The differences between nurse-systolic BP and self-measured systolic BP were not significant (0.49 mmHg; 95% CI 3.71-2.71; p=0.758). With regards to diastolic BP, no significant differences were found between the different ways of measurement. NBP gave the following values: sensitivity (Sn) of 92% and specificity (Sp) of 60%; positive predictive value (PPV) of 65.7% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 90% with a positive coefficient of probability (CP+) of 2.3 and a negative coefficient of probability (CP-) of 0.133. PBP gave the following results: Sn=72%; Sp=66.7%; PPV=64.3%; NPV=74.1%; CP+=2.16 and CP- = 0.420. CONCLUSION: Systolic BP measured by the nurse in treated hypertensive patients is significantly lower than the readings obtained by the physician, and are almost identical to ambulatory BP monitoring. Blood pressure determination by the nurse is desirable not only for diagnosis but also to evaluate the level of control of blood pressure during the follow-up of treated hypertensive patients.