Early, Optimal Blood Pressure Control for High-risk Patients

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Peter M Nilsson ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Blood Pressure Control ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Optimal Blood Pressure

Abstract WMP59: Premorbid Blood Pressure Control of Incident Transient Ischaemic Attacks and Strokes; Prevalence and Determinants; Analysis of Individual Patient Data over 10 Years

Stroke ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chamila Mettananda ◽  
Lixin Li ◽  
Gary Lau ◽  
Rose Wharton ◽  
Linda Bull ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Blood Pressure Control ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Pressure Control ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Transient Ischaemic Attacks ◽  
Risk Patients

Background: Uncontrolled blood pressure is the most important modifiable risk factor for strokes. Aims and Methods: We determined the prevalence and determinants of blood pressure control in patients with incident transient ischaemic attacks(TIA) and strokes from 2002-2012 in a population-based cohort(Oxford Vascular Study). Controlled blood pressure(BP) was defined as having BP<140/90mmHg and was studied in different cardiovascular risk groups according to the Framingham 10-year general cardiovascular risk(CV-Risk) predicted at time of event and 10years pre-event; low(≤ 10%), moderate(11-19%) and high(≥ 20%) risk. We also studied the associations of controlled BP adjusted for age and sex. Results: Among 1741 patients with incident TIA/strokes, 1051 (60.4%) had known hypertension, of which 891 (84.8%) were on anti-hypertensive treatment. However, only 698 (40.1%) of all and 306 (29.1%) of treated patients had controlled BP. On predicted 10-year CV-Risk at event, 861 (72.5%) of 1188 (77.0%) in high risk group had known hypertension, of which 758 (88.0%) were on treatment. However, only 346 (29.1%) of all in high-risk group and 190 (25.1%) of treated high risk patients had controlled BP. In contrast, 120 (88.2%) of 136 (8.8%) in low risk group had controlled BP. Risk stratification without scoring for BP showed consistent results except the number in high-risk group dropped to 863 (55.9%). Analysis with CV-risk 10years pre-event also showed similar trends. Age(adjusted OR=0.97, 95%CI=0.97-0.98, p<0.001), high CV-risk at event/10years pre-event (0.97, 0.95-0.99, p<0.013, 0.95-0.99, p=0.008), being treated for hypertension(0.43, 0.35-0.52, p<0.001), BMI≥ 30Kg/m2(0.72, 0.55-0.92, p=0.010) and high total cholesterol(0.91, 0.84-0.99, p<0.026) were negatively associated with controlled BP. However history of atrial fibrillation(1.35, 1.03-1.77, p=0.030) and physical dependency(modified-Rankin-Scale>2; 1.54, 1.15-2.06, p<0.001) were positively associated with controlled BP. Conclusions: Premorbid blood pressure control in patients with incident TIA/strokes was inadequate especially in high-risk patients. Controlling BP to targets in elderly and high CV-risk patients would be important in reducing incident TIA/strokes.

scholarly journals Does socioeconomic status make a difference? A register-based study on the extent to which cardiovascular screening in patients with inflammatory arthritis leads to recommended follow-up in general practice

RMD Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e000940
Author(s):  
Anette Hvenegaard Kjeldgaard ◽  
Kim Hørslev-Petersen ◽  
Sonja Wehberg ◽  
Jens Soendergaard ◽  
Jette Primdahl
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Screening ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Risk Patients

ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) follow recommendations given in a secondary care nurse-led cardiovascular (CV) risk screening consultation to consult their general practitioner (GP) to reduce their CV risk and whether their socioeconomic status (SES) affects adherence.MethodsAdults with IA who had participated in a secondary care screening consultation from July 2012 to July 2015, based on the EULAR recommendations, were identified. Patients were considered to have high CV risk if they had risk Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) ≥5%, according to the European SCORE model or systolic blood pressure ≥145 mmHg, total cholesterol ≥8 mmol/L, LDL cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L, HbA1c ≥42 mmol/mol or fasting glucose ≥6 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a consultation with their GP and at least one action focusing on CV risk factors within 6 weeks after the screening consultation.ResultsThe study comprised 1265 patients, aged 18–85 years. Of these, 336/447 (75%) of the high-risk patients and 580/819 (71%) of the low-risk patients had a GP consultation. 127/336 (38%) of high-risk patients and 160/580 (28%) of low-risk patients received relevant actions related to their CV risk, for example, blood pressure home measurement or prescription for statins, antihypertensives or antidiabetics. Education ≥10 years increased the odds for non-adherence (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.0.37 to 0.92, p=0.02).Conclusions75% of the high-risk patients consulted their GP after the secondary care CV risk screening, and 38% of these received an action relevant for their CV risk. Higher education decreased adherence.

scholarly journals Changes in patient activation following cardiac rehabilitation using the Active+me digital healthcare platform during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabbi Frith ◽  
Kathryn Carver ◽  
Sarah Curry ◽  
Alan Darby ◽  
Anna Sydes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Patient Activation ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Smart Device ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background Restrictions on face-to-face contact, due to COVID-19, led to a rapid adoption of technology to remotely deliver cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Some technologies, including Active+me, were used without knowing their benefits. We assessed changes in patient activation measure (PAM) in patients participating in routine CR, using Active+me. We also investigated changes in PAM among low, moderate, and high risk patients, changes in cardiovascular risk factors, and explored patient and healthcare professional experiences of using Active+me. Methods Patients received standard CR education and an exercise prescription. Active+me was used to monitor patient health, progress towards goals, and provide additional lifestyle support. Patients accessed Active+me through a smart-device application which synchronised to telemetry enabled scales, blood pressure monitors, pulse oximeter, and activity trackers. Changes in PAM score following CR were calculated. Sub-group analysis was conducted on patients at high, moderate, and low risk of exercise induced cardiovascular events. Qualitative interviews explored the acceptability of Active+me. Results Forty-six patients were recruited (Age: 60.4 ± 10.9 years; BMI: 27.9 ± 5.0 kg.m2; 78.3% male). PAM scores increased from 65.5 (range: 51.0 to 100.0) to 70.2 (range: 40.7 to 100.0; P = 0.039). PAM scores of high risk patients increased from 61.9 (range: 53.0 to 91.0) to 75.0 (range: 58.1 to 100.0; P = 0.044). The PAM scores of moderate and low risk patients did not change. Resting systolic blood pressure decreased from 125 mmHg (95% CI: 120 to 130 mmHg) to 119 mmHg (95% CI: 115 to 122 mmHg; P = 0.023) and waist circumference measurements decreased from 92.8 cm (95% CI: 82.6 to 102.9 cm) to 85.3 cm (95% CI 79.1 to 96.2 cm; P = 0.026). Self-reported physical activity levels increased from 1557.5 MET-minutes (range: 245.0 to 5355.0 MET-minutes) to 3363.2 MET-minutes (range: 105.0 to 12,360.0 MET-minutes; P < 0.001). Active+me was acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. Conclusion Participation in standard CR, with Active+me, is associated with increased patient skill, knowledge, and confidence to manage their condition. Active+me may be an appropriate platform to support CR delivery when patients cannot be seen face-to-face. Trial registration As this was not a clinical trial, the study was not registered in a trial registry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document