Why the study?
Blood pressure measurement increasingly uses home or ambulatory monitoring, but existing cardiovascular risk scores were developed using clinic measurements.
Does using out-of-office blood pressure measurements instead of clinic readings significantly alter estimated cardiovascular risk scores in adults without prior cardiovascular disease?
Does using out-of-office blood pressure measurements instead of clinic readings significantly alter estimated cardiovascular risk scores in adults without prior cardiovascular disease?
Estimates of cardiovascular risk are similar when calculated using ambulatory or home blood pressure measurements compared to clinic readings, with few patients reclassified across treatment thresholds.
Clinic and ambulatory BP yield similar risk estimates with minimal reclassification; leaves open whether out-of-office readings refine primary prevention stratification.
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 clinics. 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 25–84 years in the UK and the Netherlands without prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in two BP monitoring studies: the Blood Pressure in different Ethnic groups (BP-Eth) study and the Home versus Office blood pressure MEasurements: Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study (HOMERUS). Method The primary comparison was Framingham risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Statistical significance was determined using non-parametric tests. Results In 442 BP-Eth patients (mean age = 58 years, 50% female [ n = 222]) 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 [IQR] 0.65–3.63, P = 0.67). In 165 HOMERUS patients (mean age = 56 years, 46% female) the median absolute difference in 10-year risk for daytime ambulatory BP was 2.76% (IQR 1.19–6.39, P <0.001) and only 8 out of 165 (4.8%) of patients 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lay‐Flurrie et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: