ArticleJournal of human hypertension2023
Prognostic value of home blood pressure monitoring in patients under antihypertensive treatment.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prognostic value of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) has been investigated in several studies in the general population, demonstrating its independent association with cardiovascular events. However, in the case of treated hypertensive subjects, evidence is controversial. Our purpose was to evaluate the prognostic value of HBPM in this population. Medicated hypertensive patients who performed a 4-day HBPM (Omron® HEM-705CP-II) between 2008 and 2015 were followed up for a median of 5.9 years, registering the occurrence of a composite primary outcome of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events. Cox regression models were used to analyze the prognostic value of HBPM, considering 4-day measurements, discarding the first day, and analyzing morning, afternoon and evening periods separately. We included 1582 patients in the analysis (33.4% men, median age 70.8 years, on an average of 2.1 antihypertensive drugs). During follow-up, 273 events occurred. HBPM was significantly associated with cardiovascular events in all five scenarios in the unadjusted models. When adjusting for office BP and other cardiovascular risk factors, the association remained marginally significant for the 4-day period, discarding first-day measurements HBPM (HR 1.04 [95% CI 1-1.1] and 1.04 [95% CI 1-1.1], respectively) and statistically significant for all separate periods of measurement: HR 1.32 (95% CI 1.01-1.72); 1.33 (95% CI 1.02-1.72); and 1.30 (95% CI 1.01-1.67), for morning, afternoon and evening, respectively. When analyzing separately fatal and non-fatal events, statistical significance was held for the former only. In conclusion, HBPM is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events in hypertensives under treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.