Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStevens, S.L.*
dc.contributor.authorStevens, R.J.*
dc.contributor.authorde Leeuw, P.*
dc.contributor.authorKroon, A.A.*
dc.contributor.authorGreenfield, S.*
dc.contributor.authorMohammed, Mohammed A.*
dc.contributor.authorGill, P.*
dc.contributor.authorVerberk, W.J.*
dc.contributor.authorMcManus, R.J.*
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-28T15:32:57Z
dc.date.available2018-09-28T15:32:57Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationStevens SL, Stevens RJ, de Leeuw P et al (2019) Using out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: implications for practice. British Journal of General Practice. 69(683): e381-e388.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/16588
dc.descriptionYesen_US
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background: Blood pressure (BP) measurement is increasingly carried out through home or ambulatory monitoring, yet existing cardiovascular risk scores were developed for use with measurements obtained in clinic. Aim: To describe differences in cardiovascular risk estimates obtained using ambulatory or home BP measurements instead of clinic readings. Design and setting: Secondary analysis of data from adults aged 30-84 without prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in two BP monitoring studies (BP-Eth and HOMERUS). Method: The primary comparison was Framingham risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements. The QRISK2 and SCORE risk equations were also studied. Statistical and clinical significance were determined using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and scatter plots respectively. Results: In 442 BP-Eth patients (mean age = 58 years, 50% female) the median absolute difference in 10-year Framingham cardiovascular risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements was 1.84% (interquartile range 0.65 to 3.63, p=0.67). Only 31/ 442 (7.0%) of patients were reclassified across the 10% risk treatment threshold. In 165 HOMERUS patients (mean age = 56 years, 46% female) the median difference in 10-year risk was 2.76% (IQR 1.19 to 6.39, p<0.001) and only 8/165 (4.8%) of patient were reclassified. Conclusion: Estimates of cardiovascular risk are similar when calculated using BP measurements obtained as in the risk score derivation study or through ambulatory monitoring. Further research is required to determine if differences in estimated risk would meaningfully influence risk score accuracy.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.isreferencedbyhttps://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X702737en_US
dc.rights© 2019 Royal College of General Practitioners. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.en_US
dc.subjectBlood pressureen_US
dc.subjectRisken_US
dc.subjectMyocardial infarctionen_US
dc.subjectStrokeen_US
dc.subjectPrimary health careen_US
dc.subjectAmbulatory monitoringen_US
dc.subjectMeasurementsen_US
dc.subjectAccuracyen_US
dc.subjectBlood Pressure (BP) measurementen_US
dc.titleUsing out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: implications for practiceen_US
dc.status.refereedYesen_US
dc.date.Accepted2018-09-07
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.type.versionAccepted manuscripten_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-09-28T15:33:01Z


Item file(s)

Thumbnail
Name:
stevens_et_al_2019.pdf
Size:
517.1Kb
Format:
PDF
Thumbnail
Name:
Manuscript_supplement_resubmis ...
Size:
997.4Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Supplementary material

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record