ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2023
Association between office visit intervals and long-term cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review of Blood Pressure Control in Vulnerable Older Adults: The Role of Frailty and Sarcopenia.Journal of vascular diseases · 2025Article
- Association between office visit intervals and long-term cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertension is a chronic disease that requires long-term follow-up in many patients, however, optimal visit intervals are not well-established. This study aimed to evaluate the incidences of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) according to visit intervals. We analyzed data from 9894 hypertensive patients in the Korean Hypertension Cohort, which enrolled and followed up 11,043 patients for over 10 years. Participants were classified into five groups based on their median visit intervals (MVIs) during the 4-year period and MACEs were compared among the groups. The patients were divided into clinically relevant MVIs of one (1013; 10%), two (1299; 13%), three (2732; 28%), four (2355; 24%), and six months (2515; 25%). The median follow-up period was 5 years (range: 1745 ± 293 days). The longer visit interval groups did not have an increased cumulative incidence of MACE (12.9%, 11.8%, 6.7%, 5.9%, and 4%, respectively). In the Cox proportional hazards model, those in the longer MVI group had a smaller hazard ratio (HR) for MACEs or all-cause death: 1.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.17), 1.7 (95% CI: 1.41-2.05), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74-1.09) and 0.64 (95% CI: 0.52-0.79), respectively (Reference MVI group of 75-104 days). In conclusion, a follow-up visits with a longer interval of 3-6 months was not associated with an increased risk of MACE or all-cause death in hypertensive patients. Therefore, once medication adjustment is stabilized, a longer interval of 3-6 months is reasonable, reducing medical expenses without increasing the risk of cardiovascular outcomes.
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.