Abstract 13199: Home Blood Pressure Monitoring Among Us Adults Without Hypertension: How Do Existing Patient and Physician Behaviors Correspond to Current Recommendations?

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey B Bryant ◽  
Matthew B Green ◽  
Ian M Kronish ◽  
Yiyi Zhang ◽  
James Sheppard ◽  
...  

Introduction: Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is an option recommended by the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines to confirm a hypertension diagnosis or identify masked hypertension. Using clinic BP and patient characteristics, the Predicting Out-of-Office BP in the Clinic (PROOF-BP) algorithm can be used to guide HBPM decisions. It is unknown how existing patient use and physician recommendations for HBPM align with current screening recommendations. Methods: We used the 2009-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to identify US adults aged ≥20 years without hypertension or antihypertensive medication use. We identified those who would have been recommended to undergo HBPM by ACC/AHA guidelines as those with a mean BP 120-159/<100 mm Hg and by the PROOF-BP algorithm as those with a predicted out-of-office BP 125-134/75-84 mm Hg. We required individuals to have complete data needed for the PROOF-BP algorithm (demographics, BP, smoking, alcohol use, kidney disease) and reported HBPM actual/recommended use. All analyses were weighted to be representative of the US population. Results: We included 7,185 NHANES adults without hypertension; weighted mean (SE) age was 41.5 (0.3) years, 48% female, and mean BP 117.0 (0.3)/70.4 (0.3) mm Hg. Overall, 50.3% of adults without hypertension would have been recommended to undergo HBPM by ACC/AHA guidelines and 29.7% by PROOF-BP ( Table ). Only 13.3% of those recommended HBPM by ACC/AHA guidelines used or were told to use HBPM, compared to 11.5% of those not recommended screening. Similar results were seen among those recommended HBPM by PROOF-BP ( Table ). Conclusions: Our analysis shows that prior to 2017 guidelines, a substantial proportion of US adults may have had their hypertensive status misclassified due to a lack of HBPM or undergo unnecessary monitoring. These findings suggest an opportunity for clinicians and health systems to more clearly target HBPM to those who need it given guidelines currently in use.

Hypertension ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel C Marrs ◽  
Sarah L Anderson

Introduction: National prevalence data on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) has previously been reported from 2009-2010, but no recent data has been reported. Methods: This report is based on national-level, cross-sectional data for noninstitutionalized US adults aged ≥18 years (n = 6,113 participants) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2013-2014. Results: Overall, 25.5% (1560 of 6113) of the adults engaged in HBPM monitoring in the 2013-2014 survey year. This is an increase from the previous NHANES 2009-2010 analysis reporting a 21.7% (1302 of 6001) rate. The frequency of HBPM increased with higher age, higher education level, having a partner, hypertensive, hypertensive aware, and hypertensive treated. Both SBP and DBP were higher in the HBPM group and were both statistically significant. The groups of hypertensive, hypertensive-aware, and hypertensive-treated patients all showed higher rates of HBPM use than nonuse. The frequency of HBPM monitoring in the categories of less than monthly, monthly, and weekly was reported at rates of 7.8% (476 of 6113), 6.6% (401 of 6113), and 11.2% (683 of 6113), respectively. These reported rates are consistent and slightly increased in the weekly HBPM reported use compared with the NHANEs 2009-2010 analysis (7.2% [432 of 6001], 6.6% [396 of 6001], and 7.9% [474 of 6001), respectively). Adjusting for covariables, those who were aware of, treated for, and had known hypertension were more likely to have a higher frequency of HBPM than the reference: unaware, untreated, and no known hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 1.98; OR = 2.13; and OR = 1.64, respectively). Individuals with less than a high school diploma and having no partner were less likely to perform HBPM than the reference: high school graduate or greater and having a partner (OR = 0.73; OR = 0.65, respectively). Conclusions: Approximately 21.0% (1084 of 6113) of adults engaged in monthly or more frequent HBPM which is an increase from the reported 14.5%(870 of 6001) rate in the 2009-2010 analysis. Having hypertension, being aware of hypertension, and being treated for hypertension were associated with an increased frequency of HBPM. Having no partner and less than a high school diploma were associated with lower frequency of HBPM.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia R Nuckols ◽  
Amy K Stroud ◽  
Debra Brandt ◽  
Mark K Santillan ◽  
Donna A Santillan ◽  
...  

Introduction: One-third of women with a history of preeclampsia (hxPE), a hypertensive pregnancy disorder, develop chronic hypertension (HTN) within five years postpartum. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) shows that 12% of women with hxPE have ‘masked’ HTN. Masked HTN is undetected in routine clinical assessment but is associated with elevated cardiovascular disease risk. ABPM (gold-standard) or home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is needed to identify masked HTN. HBPM is a well-tolerated, inexpensive alternative to ABPM. However, the ability of HBPM to detect masked postpartum HTN using new AHA/ACC HTN guidelines is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare ABPM and HBPM in the identification of masked and sustained HTN among young women with hxPE and healthy pregnancy (HP) controls 1-3 years postpartum. Methods: Women with hxPE (N=22; age 33 ± 5 yrs) and HP controls (N=26; age 34 ± 4 yrs) were assessed 18 ± 6 months postpartum. Seated office blood pressure (BP) was collected with an automated brachial cuff and averaged over three trials. ABPM (Mobil-o-graph) was conducted with a portable, automated brachial cuff and averaged over 38 ± 2 awake and asleep BP recordings. Participants completed HBPM (Microlife) morning and evening for seven consecutive days. BP thresholds for HTN were determined according to 2017 AHA/ACC clinical guidelines. Results: HTN was more prevalent among women with hxPE compared with HP assessed by office BP (59 vs. 15 %, P=0.002) and ABPM (68 vs. 31 %, P=0.01) but not HBPM (41 vs 19 %, P=0.10). The prevalence of masked HTN did not differ between women with hxPE and HP (14 vs. 19%, P=0.71) assessed by ABPM. In the entire cohort, HBPM detected 50% of masked HTN cases identified by ABPM. HBPM agreed with ABPM on HTN status (κ = 0.49, P=0.002). HBPM and ABPM detected uncontrolled HTN in three of four women with hxPE prescribed anti-hypertensive medication. Conclusion: HxPE is associated with a higher prevalence of HTN 1-3 yrs postpartum compared with controls, but the prevalence of masked HTN did not differ. ABPM and HBPM showed concordant classification of HTN using current BP guidelines. These findings indicate that HBPM may be a valuable pre-screening tool for early identification and management of HTN postpartum.


2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (11) ◽  
pp. 1870-1872

Hypertension is a powerful modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The prevalence of hypertension in Thailand is increasing progressively. Patients with hypertension are usually asymptomatic, and thus proper blood pressure measurement is required to diagnose and assess the blood pressure control. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is recognized as a useful tool in hypertension management and is recommended by many organizations, including the Thai Hypertension Society. The proven benefits of HBPM beyond the usual clinic measurement is that it allowed detection of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension, better prediction of cardiovascular events, better assessment of the status of blood pressure control, and improved treatment compliance. Despite these benefits, the use of HBPM has remained low in many countries. The Asia HBPM Survey is a collaborative study of participants from 11 countries in Asia. The present study aimed to investigate physicians’ rationale, challenge, and attitudes toward the use of HBPM for hypertensive patients. Herein, the authors report Thai physicians’ responses in the Asia HBPM Survey.


2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 852-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olive Tang ◽  
Kathryn Foti ◽  
Edgar R Miller ◽  
Lawrence J Appel ◽  
Stephen P Juraschek

Abstract BACKGROUND Hypertension guidelines recommend home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) to help achieve blood pressure (BP) control. We hypothesized that HBPM use with a physician recommendation would be associated with lower BP and greater medication adherence. METHODS We used data from 6,320 adults with hypertension in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2014 to characterize the association of (i) provider recommendation for HBPM and (ii) HBPM use on 2 outcomes: measured BP (linear regression) and medication adherence (logistic regression). Provider recommendation, HBPM use, and medication use were self-reported. RESULTS Among adults with hypertension, 30.1% reported a physician recommendation for HBPM, among whom 82.0% reported using HBPM. Among those who did not report a physician recommendation for HBPM, 28.3% used HBPM. Factors associated with a physician recommendation were having health insurance, higher education attainment, hypertension awareness, and having a prescription for antihypertensive medication. Among those who reported receiving a physician recommendation, those who used HBPM had a mean BP that was 3.1/4.5 mm Hg lower than those who did not. Those who reported having a physician recommendation and using HBPM were more likely to report hypertension medication adherence (odds ratio 2.9; 95% confidence interval: 2.0, 4.4). CONCLUSIONS HBPM use was associated with lower BP and higher medication adherence. Use of HBPM was higher among those with a physician recommendation. These results support a role for physicians in counseling and partnering with patients on HBPM use for BP management.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 1745-1747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Audes D. M. Feitosa ◽  
Marco A. Mota‐Gomes ◽  
Roberto D. Miranda ◽  
Weimar S. Barroso ◽  
Eduardo C. D. Barbosa ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document