Why the study?
Data are lacking on the effectiveness of remote blood pressure monitoring to improve treatment adherence and outcomes in patients with arterial hypertension at high and very high cardiovascular risk.
Does remote blood pressure monitoring improve the organization of regular medical check-ups in working-age patients with arterial hypertension at extremely high cardiovascular risk?
Does remote blood pressure monitoring improve the organization of regular medical check-ups in working-age patients with arterial hypertension at extremely high cardiovascular risk?
This paper outlines the design of a prospective observational study to evaluate remote blood pressure monitoring in high-risk hypertensive patients in Russia.
Arterial hypertension (AH) represents a serious public health problem and remains one of the most common chronic noncommunicable diseases, both in Russia and globally. Although the development of effective treatments for AH patients has considerably advanced, frequent cardiovascular complications and high mortality are mainly associated with inappropriate control of arterial blood pressure (BP). The zone of special attention includes high- and extremely high-risk patients who may develop cardiovascular complications affected by AH. At present, telemedicine technologies, including remote automated monitoring (RAM), are considered as an option to improve the results of such patients' treatment. At the same time, there is a lack of data on the monitoring effectiveness of BP in high- and very high-risk patients needed for forming their adherence to treatment and developing effective treatment methods. The rationale and design of a single-center prospective observational study including 150 patients, residents of Primorsky Krai with AH at very high risk of cardiovascular complications are presented. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of remote blood pressure (BP) monitoring in the organization of regular medical check-ups of working-age patients at extremely high cardiovascular risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Невзорова et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: