Why the study?
Does intensive cardiovascular examination (including MAU, hs-CRP, Echo, and carotid USG) improve cardiovascular risk stratification compared to routine clinical evaluation in patients with high normal and high blood pressure?
Does intensive cardiovascular examination (including MAU, hs-CRP, Echo, and carotid USG) improve cardiovascular risk stratification compared to routine clinical evaluation in patients with high normal and high blood pressure?
Intensive cardiovascular examination, including hs-CRP, MAU, echocardiography, and carotid ultrasonography, significantly increases the proportion of hypertensive patients stratified into high and very high cardiovascular risk groups compared to routine assessment alone.
Should not yet change risk stratification practice; leaves open whether intensified evaluation improves outcomes in high BP.
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of total cardiovascular risk level is crucial for approaching hypertensive patients. Therefore, the aim of the Intensive/Initial Cardiovascular Examination regarding Blood pressure levels: Evaluation of Risk Groups (ICEBERG) study is to determine cardiovascular risk evaluation and stratification of subjects with high normal and high blood pressure (BP > or = 130/85 mmHg), and to evaluate the impact of laboratory tests on this stratification. METHODS: ICEBERG was an epidemiological study conducted at 20 university hospitals and 197 primary healthcare centers. A total of 10,313 patients, who were diagnosed with high BP and under antihypertensive treatment or not antihypertensive under treatment at least for the last 3 months were selected. Besides routine clinical evaluation, microalbuminuria (MAU) and high sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) tests, echocardiography (Echo) and carotid ultrasonography (USG) were performed in selected arms. The patients were stratified into low, moderate, high and very high added risk groups as described by the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology Guidelines Committee (2003). RESULTS: Upon routine evaluation, the percentage of "high and very high added cardiovascular risk" groups was between 51.2% and 60.7% in different study arms. This percentage increased to 62.9% by subsequent serum biochemistry assessment and to 76.2% by hs-CRP test results. Switching upwards to "high and very high added risk" groups was around 6% when MAU results were used, with a 4.9% upwards switch to "high and very high added risk" groups when Echo was performed; this proportion increased by 6.8%, when carotid USG was taken into account. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular risk evaluation by intensive cardiovascular examination including Echo and carotid USG provided more accurate risk stratification. Furthermore, a simple test to demonstrate presence of MAU usable at primary healthcare level will also help to evaluate the patient's risk profile better than routine assessment methods alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Büyüköztürk et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: