7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of Intensive and Standard Clinic‐Based Hypertension Management on the Concordance Between Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Blood Pressure Variability in SPRINT

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , PhD 2 , , MD, MS 3 , , MD 4 , , MD, MS 5 , , MD 6 , 9 , , MD 7 , , MD 8 , , MD, MPH 9 , , MD, PhD 10 , , MD 11 , , MD 12 , , MD, MS 13 , 14 , , MD, PhD 4 , , MD, MSc 15 , , MD, PhD 16 , , MD 17 , , MD, MS 18 ,
      Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.
      ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, circadian rhythm, concordance, variability, Hypertension

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Blood pressure ( BP) varies over time within individual patients and across different BP measurement techniques. The effect of different BP targets on concordance between BP measurements is unknown. The goals of this analysis are to evaluate concordance between (1) clinic and ambulatory BP, (2) clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability, and (3) first and second ambulatory BP and to evaluate whether different clinic targets affect these relationships.

          Methods and Results

          The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) ambulatory BP monitoring ancillary study obtained ambulatory BP readings in 897 participants at the 27‐month follow‐up visit and obtained a second reading in 203 participants 293±84 days afterward. There was considerable lack of agreement between clinic and daytime ambulatory systolic BP with wide limits of agreement in Bland‐Altman plots of −21 to 34 mm Hg in the intensive‐treatment group and −26 to 32 mm Hg in the standard‐treatment group. Overall, there was poor agreement between clinic visit‐to‐visit variability and ambulatory BP variability with correlation coefficients for systolic and diastolic BP all <0.16. We observed a high correlation between first and second ambulatory BP; however, the limits of agreement were wide in both the intensive group (−27 to 21 mm Hg) and the standard group (−23 to 20 mm Hg).

          Conclusions

          We found low concordance in BP and BP variability between clinic and ambulatory BP and second ambulatory BP. Results did not differ by treatment arm. These results reinforce the need for multiple BP measurements before clinical decision making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading.

          When comparing a new method of measurement with a standard method, one of the things we want to know is whether the difference between the measurements by the two methods is related to the magnitude of the measurement. A plot of the difference against the standard measurement is sometimes suggested, but this will always appear to show a relation between difference and magnitude when there is none. A plot of the difference against the average of the standard and new measurements is unlikely to mislead in this way. We show this theoretically and by a practical example.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The design and rationale of a multicenter clinical trial comparing two strategies for control of systolic blood pressure: the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).

            High blood pressure is an important public health concern because it is highly prevalent and a risk factor for adverse health outcomes, including coronary heart disease, stroke, decompensated heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and decline in cognitive function. Observational studies show a progressive increase in risk associated with blood pressure above 115/75 mm Hg. Prior research has shown that reducing elevated systolic blood pressure lowers the risk of subsequent clinical complications from cardiovascular disease. However, the optimal systolic blood pressure to reduce blood pressure-related adverse outcomes is unclear, and the benefit of treating to a level of systolic blood pressure well below 140 mm Hg has not been proven in a large, definitive clinical trial. To describe the design considerations of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the baseline characteristics of trial participants. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial that compares two strategies for treating systolic blood pressure: one targets the standard target of <140 mm Hg, and the other targets a more intensive target of <120 mm Hg. Enrollment focused on volunteers of age ≥50 years (no upper limit) with an average baseline systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg and evidence of cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, 10-year Framingham cardiovascular disease risk score ≥15%, or age ≥75 years. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial recruitment also targeted three pre-specified subgroups: participants with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), participants with a history of cardiovascular disease, and participants 75 years of age or older. The primary outcome is first the occurrence of a myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular disease death. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, decline in kidney function or development of end-stage renal disease, incident dementia, decline in cognitive function, and small-vessel cerebral ischemic disease. Between 8 November 2010 and 15 March 2013, Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial recruited and randomized 9361 people at 102 clinics, including 3331 women, 2648 with chronic kidney disease, 1877 with a history of cardiovascular disease, 3962 minorities, and 2636 ≥75 years of age. Although the overall recruitment target was met, the numbers recruited in the high-risk subgroups were lower than planned. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial will provide important information on the risks and benefits of intensive blood pressure treatment targets in a diverse sample of high-risk participants, including those with prior cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and those aged ≥75 years. © The Author(s) 2014.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Practice guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension for clinic, ambulatory and self blood pressure measurement.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                draw0003@umn.edu
                Journal
                J Am Heart Assoc
                J Am Heart Assoc
                10.1002/(ISSN)2047-9980
                JAH3
                ahaoa
                Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2047-9980
                15 July 2019
                16 July 2019
                : 8
                : 14 ( doiID: 10.1002/jah3.2019.8.issue-14 )
                : e011706
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Division of Public Health Department of Epidemiology and Community Health University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN
                [ 2 ] Division of Public Health Sciences Department of Biostatistical Sciences Wake Forest School of Medicine Winston‐Salem NC
                [ 3 ] Division of Nephrology Veterans Affairs Health System and University of California San Diego CA
                [ 4 ] Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine Houston TX
                [ 5 ] Division of Nephrology Stanford University School of Medicine Palo Alto CA
                [ 6 ] Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center Memphis TN
                [ 7 ] Division of Cardiology Department of Internal Medicine University of Kentucky College of Medicine Lexington KY
                [ 8 ] Division of Nephrology and Hypertension Mayo Clinic Jacksonville FL
                [ 9 ] Department of Preventive Medicine University of Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis TN
                [ 10 ] Division of Cardiovascular Disease and Hypertension Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School New Brunswick NJ
                [ 11 ] Department of Veterans Affairs and Georgetown University Washington DC
                [ 12 ] Case Western Reserve University University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center Cleveland OH
                [ 13 ] Department of Internal Medicine University of Utah Salt Lake City UT
                [ 14 ] George E. Wahlen Veterans Affairs Medical Center Salt Lake City UT
                [ 15 ] Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine New Orleans LA
                [ 16 ] Clinical Hypertension Program Division of Nephrology and Hypertension University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center Cleveland OH
                [ 17 ] Division of Nephrology The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center Columbus OH
                [ 18 ] Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence to: Paul E. Drawz, MD, MS, Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension, University of Minnesota, 717 Delaware St SE, Suite 353, Minneapolis, MN 55414. E‐mail: draw0003@ 123456umn.edu
                Article
                JAH34265
                10.1161/JAHA.118.011706
                6662121
                31307270
                69ba23a2-6ce5-4c48-81a8-682287eb3912
                © 2019 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 12 March 2019
                : 11 June 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 11, Words: 8731
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health
                Award ID: R03DK100530
                Award ID: K12HD043451
                Award ID: K23DK091521
                Award ID: R03DK105314
                Funded by: University of Minnesota Chronic Kidney Disease Research Fund
                Funded by: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
                Funded by: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
                Funded by: National Institute on Aging
                Funded by: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
                Award ID: HHSN268200900040C
                Award ID: HHSN268200900046C
                Award ID: HHSN268200900047C
                Award ID: HHSN268200900048C
                Award ID: HHSN268200900049C
                Award ID: A‐HL‐13‐002‐001
                Funded by: Department of Veterans Affairs
                Funded by: Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc
                Funded by: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
                Funded by: Case Western Reserve University
                Award ID: UL1TR000439
                Funded by: The Ohio State University
                Award ID: UL1RR025755
                Funded by: University of Pennsylvania
                Award ID: UL1RR024134
                Award ID: UL1TR000003
                Funded by: Boston
                Award ID: UL1RR025771
                Funded by: Stanford
                Award ID: UL1TR000093
                Funded by: Tufts
                Award ID: UL1RR025752
                Award ID: UL1TR000073
                Award ID: UL1TR001064
                Funded by: University of Illinois
                Award ID: UL1TR000050
                Funded by: University of Pittsburgh
                Award ID: UL1TR000005
                Funded by: University of Texas Southwestern
                Award ID: 9U54TR000017‐06
                Funded by: University of Utah
                Award ID: UL1TR000105‐05
                Funded by: Vanderbilt University
                Award ID: UL1TR000445
                Funded by: George Washington University
                Award ID: UL1TR000075
                Funded by: University of California, Davis
                Award ID: UL1TR000002
                Funded by: University of Florida
                Award ID: UL1TR000064
                Funded by: University of Michigan
                Award ID: UL1TR000433
                Funded by: Tulane University
                Award ID: P30GM103337
                Funded by: Center of Biomedical Research Excellence Award
                Funded by: National Institute of General Medical Sciences
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Hypertension
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jah34265
                16 July 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.6.5 mode:remove_FC converted:16.07.2019

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                ambulatory blood pressure monitoring,circadian rhythm,concordance,variability,hypertension

                Comments

                Comment on this article