[PP.06.26] EFFECT OF STANDARDIZED ALGORITHMIC TREATMENT ON HOME BLOOD PRESSURE VARIABILITY

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. e136
Author(s):  
K.M. Amosova ◽  
I.U. Rudenko
PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. e0206945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junko Kuwabara ◽  
Koichiro Kuwahara ◽  
Yoshihiro Kuwabara ◽  
Shinji Yasuno ◽  
Yasuaki Nakagawa ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-242
Author(s):  
Annamária Magdás ◽  
Boglárka Belényi ◽  
Adina Gaburoi ◽  
Alexandru Incze

AbstractBackground: A number of studies reveal that home blood pressure variability is associated with cardiovascular risk factors. However, we do not have a consensus regarding the variability index and the frequency of measurements.Objective: The aim of the study was to assess home blood pressure variability for a period of 7 consecutive days and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure variability using the average real variability index and to test whether home blood pressure variability represents a suitable parameter for long-term monitoring of the hypertensive patients.Material and methods: A number of 31 hypertensive patients were included in the study, 8 male, 23 female, mean age 60.19±7.35 years. At the inclusion ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed, home blood pressure monitoring was carried out for 7 consecutive days with 2 measurements daily. We compared ambulatory blood pressure values, variability using paired t-test. We were looking for correlations between HBP values and cardiovascular risk factors.Results: Ambulatory versus home blood pressure derived mean blood pressure was 131.38±15.2 versus 131.93±8.25, p=0.81. Ambulatory derived variability was 10.65±2.05 versus home variability 10.56±4.83, p=0.91. Home versus ambulatory pulse pressure was 51.8± 9.06 mmHg vs. 54.9±11.9 mmHg, p=0.046. We found positive correlation between HBPV and home BP values, p=0.027, r2=0.1577, (CI: 0.04967 to 0.6588). Home, as well as ambulatory derived variability were positively correlated to age p=0.043, r2=0.1377 (CI: 0.01234 to 0.6451) versus p<0.0001, CI: 0.3870 to 0.8220, r2=0.4302.Conclusion: Assessment of home blood pressure monitoring and variability could represent a well-tolerated alternative for long-term follow-up of hypertension management.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 748-755
Author(s):  
Jun-Won Lee ◽  
Eunhee Choi ◽  
Jung-Woo Son ◽  
Young Jin Youn ◽  
Sung-Gyun Ahn ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Antihypertensive therapy using renin–angiotensin system blockers and calcium channel blockers to target blood pressure variability (BPV) has not yet been established. We aimed to compare the ability of losartan and amlodipine to lower BPV and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in essential hypertensive patients. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned either losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. Medications were uptitrated and hydrochlorothiazide was added according to protocol for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the office visit-to-visit SD of SBP. The secondary endpoints included average real variability (ARV), office SBP, and home SBP. RESULTS The losartan group (n = 71) and amlodipine group (n = 73) finished the scheduled visits between April 2013 and May 2017. The office visit-to-visit SD of SBP was comparable between the losartan and amlodipine groups (11.0 ± 4.2 vs. 10.5 ± 3.8, P = 0.468). The office visit-to-visit ARV of SBP was significantly elevated in the losartan group (10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 9.1 ± 3.4, P = 0.02). The absolute SBP decrement from baseline to 6 months was similar between groups, although the office mean SBP at 6 months was higher in the losartan group (132.3 ± 12.9 vs. 127.5 ± 9.0 mm Hg, P = 0.011). In home blood pressure analysis, evening day-to-day BPV indexes (SD and ARV) were significantly higher in the losartan group at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS The lowering effect of the office visit-to-visit SD of SBP was similar between losartan and amlodipine. However, the losartan group showed a higher office visit-to-visit ARV of SBP and evening day-to-day home BPV indexes. Therefore, amlodipine may be better to lower BPV in essential hypertensive patients.


2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomonari Okada ◽  
Hiroshi Matsumoto ◽  
Yume Nagaoka ◽  
Toshiyuki Nakao

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 463-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rianne A.A. de Heus ◽  
Stacha F.I. Reumers ◽  
Alba van der Have ◽  
Maxime Tumelaire ◽  
Phillip J. Tully ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document