Self-measurement of blood pressure at home reduces the need for antihypertensive drugs - A randomized, controlled trial

Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Hypertension (Impact Factor: 7.63). 12/2007; 50(6):1019-25. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.094193
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It is still uncertain whether one can safely base treatment decisions on self-measurement of blood pressure. In the present study, we investigated whether antihypertensive treatment based on self-measurement of blood pressure leads to the use of less medication without the loss of blood pressure control. We randomly assigned 430 hypertensive patients to receive treatment either on the basis of self-measured pressures (n=216) or office pressures (OPs; n=214). During 1-year follow-up, blood pressure was measured by office measurement (10 visits), ambulatory monitoring (start and end), and self-measurement (8 times, self-pressure group only). In addition, drug use, associated costs, and degree of target organ damage (echocardiography and microalbuminuria) were assessed. The self-pressure group used less medication than the OP group (1.47 versus 2.48 drug steps; P<0.001) with lower costs ($3222 versus $4420 per 100 patients per month; P<0.001) but without significant differences in systolic and diastolic OP values (1.6/1.0 mm Hg; P=0.25/0.20), in changes in left ventricular mass index (-6.5 g/m(2) versus -5.6 g/m(2); P=0.72), or in median urinary microalbumin concentration (-1.7 versus -1.5 mg per 24 hours; P=0.87). Nevertheless, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure values at the end of the trial were higher in the self-pressure than in the OP group: 125.9 versus 123.8 mm Hg (P<0.05) for systolic and 77.2 versus 76.1 mm Hg (P<0.05) for diastolic blood pressure. These data show that self-measurement leads to less medication use than office blood pressure measurement without leading to significant differences in OP values or target organ damage. Ambulatory values, however, remain slightly elevated for the self-pressure group.

Download full-text


Available from: Abraham Kroon, Jun 18, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring (M) provides BP information at many points on any particular day during unrestricted routine daily activities, whereas home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring provides a lot of BP information obtained under fixed times and conditions over a long period of time, thus mean values of HBP provide high reproducibility, and thus an overall superiority compared with ABP. 2. HBP is at least equally or better able than ABP to predict hypertensive target organ damage and prognosis of cardiovascular disease. 3. HBPM allows for ongoing disease monitoring by patients, improves adherence to antihypertensive treatment, and can provide health care providers with timely clinical data and direct and immediate feedback regarding diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. 4. HBPM provides BP information in relation to time, i.e., BP in the morning, in the evening, and at night during sleep, and it is an essential tool for the diagnosis of white-coat and masked hypertension. 5. HBPM yields minimal alerting effects and a placebo effect, and can therefore distinguish small but significant serial changes in BP. It is thus the most practical way to monitor BP in the day-by-day management of hypertension. 6. The superiority of HBPM over ABPM and clinic BPM is apparent from almost all practical and clinical research perspectives. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology 06/2013; DOI:10.1111/1440-1681.12142 · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the last two decades, considerable evidence on home blood pressure monitoring has accumulated and current guidelines recommend its wide application in clinical practice. First, several outcome studies have shown that the ability of home blood pressure measurements in predicting preclinical target organ damage and cardiovascular events is superior to that of the conventional office blood pressure measurements and similar to that of 24-hour ambulatory monitoring. Second, cross-sectional studies showed considerable agreement of home blood pressure measurements with ambulatory monitoring in detecting the white-coat and masked hypertension phenomena, in both untreated and treated subjects. Third, studies have shown larger blood pressure decline by using home blood pressure monitoring instead of office measurements for treatment adjustment. Fourth, in treated hypertensives, home blood pressure monitoring has been shown to improve long-term adherence to antihypertensive drug treatment and thus, has improved hypertension control rates. These data suggest that home blood pressure should no longer be regarded as only a screening tool that requires confirmation by ambulatory monitoring. Provided that an unbiased assessment is obtained according to current recommendations, home blood pressure monitoring should have primary role in diagnosis, treatment adjustment, and long-term follow-up of most cases with hypertension.
    Current Hypertension Reports 08/2014; 16(8):462. DOI:10.1007/s11906-014-0462-8 · 3.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Treatment goals for cardiovascular risk management are generally not achieved. Specialized practice nurses are increasingly facilitating the work of general practitioners and self-monitoring devices have been developed as counseling aid. The aim of this study was to compare standard treatment supported by self-monitoring with standard treatment without self-monitoring, both conducted by practice nurses, on cardiovascular risk and separate risk factors. METHODS: Men aged 50-75 years and women aged 55-75 years without a history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes, but with a SCORE 10-year risk of cardiovascular mortality [greater than or equal to]5% and at least one treatable risk factor (smoking, hypertension, lack of physical activity or overweight), were randomized into two groups. The control group received standard treatment according to guidelines, the intervention group additionally received pro-active counseling and self-monitoring (pedometer, weighing scale and/ or blood pressure device). After one year treatment effect on 179 participants was analyzed. RESULTS: SCORE risk assessment decreased 1.6% (95% CI 1.0-2.2) for the control group and 1.8% (1.2-2.4) for the intervention group, difference between groups was .2% (.6-1.1). Most risk factors tended to improve in both groups. The number of visits was higher and visits took more time in the intervention group (4.9 (SD2.2) vs. 2.6 (SD1.5) visits p < .001 and 27 (P25 -P75:20-33) vs. 23 (P25 -P75:19-30) minutes/visit p = .048). CONCLUSIONS: In both groups cardiovascular risk decreased significantly after one year of treatment by practice nurses. No additional effect of basing the pro-active counseling on self-monitoring was found, despite the extra time investment. Trial registration NTR2188.
    BMC Family Practice 09/2012; 13(1):90. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-13-90 · 1.74 Impact Factor