[Efficacy of a standardized and simplified strategy for the treatment of high blood pressure in Chile: the HEARTS Initiative in the AmericasEficácia de uma estratégia padronizada e simplificada para o tratamento da hipertensão arterial no Chile: a iniciativa HEARTS nas Américas]

Objetivo.

Evaluar la eficacia de un protocolo estandarizado y simplificado basado en los pilares técnicos de la Iniciativa HEARTS para el control de pacientes hipertensos del Programa de Salud Cardiovascular en el primer nivel de atención de salud en Chile.

Métodos.

Estudio observacional longitudinal (cohorte histórica), en 2 centros de salud familiar del primer nivel de atención en Santiago, que comparó el control de presión arterial en adultos hipertensos logrado con el protocolo estandarizado y simplificado, frente al protocolo habitual, según las guías nacionales. Las innovaciones del protocolo estandarizado incluyeron cambios en la coordinación del equipo de salud, inicio de tratamiento farmacológico inmediatamente después de confirmación diagnóstica, tratamiento farmacológico estandarizado con combinación de al menos 2 o 3 fármacos antihipertensivos en un sólo comprimido, en una toma diaria. Se realizó seguimiento por 1 año para evaluar el porcentaje de adherencia al tratamiento y cumplimiento de metas de control de presión arterial (menor a 140/90 mmHg).

Resultados.

Se evaluaron 1 490 pacientes: 562 que utilizaron el protocolo estandarizado y simplificado y 928 tratados con el protocolo habitual (centros de salud familiar-1: 650, centros de salud familiar -2: 278). A 1 año de seguimiento, los pacientes del grupo del protocolo estandarizado y simplificado tuvieron mayor proporción de cumplimiento de metas de control de presión arterial (65% versus 37% y 41%, p<0,001) y mayor porcentaje de adherencia al tratamiento en comparación con aquellos con el protocolo habitual (71% versus 18% y 23%, p<0,001).

Conclusiones.

Los resultados muestran que el protocolo estandarizado y simplificado es más efectivo que el protocolo habitual en el control de hipertensión arterial en pacientes en tratamiento en el primer nivel de atención en Chile. Su implementación a nivel nacional podría contribuir a la disminución de eventos cardiovasculares mayores.

Automated Office Blood Pressure and the Impact of Attendance and Rest on Diagnostic Accuracy

BACKGROUND

Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) using 3-5 measurements taken with an oscillometric device with or without an attendant in the room may decrease "white coat" effect. We evaluated the impact of the presence or absence of the attendant and rest on BP and diagnosis of hypertension.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 133 adults aged 18-85 with high BP at baseline (≥140/90 mm Hg), no hypertensive diagnosis and no antihypertensive medications to either attended AOBP first, unattended second, or unattended AOBP first, attended second. Outcomes included within-person BP difference for attended vs. unattended measurements; 5 vs. 15 minutes of rest; and the diagnostic performance of AOBP compared with daytime automated blood pressure measurement (ABPM).

RESULTS

We found no significant differences between attended and unattended AOBP (mean difference attended - unattended [95% confidence interval, CI], systolic 0.14 mm Hg [-0.78, 1.06]; diastolic 0.16 mm Hg [-0.45, 0.78]) or by rest time (mean difference 15 - 5 minutes [95% CI], systolic -0.45 mm Hg [-1.36, 0.47]; diastolic 0.61 mm Hg [-1.23, 0.003]). AOBP was lower than mean daytime ABPM, regardless of attendance or rest (after 5 minutes rest systolic -3.6 and diastolic -2.55 mm Hg, P = 0.001 for both comparisons). Using daytime ABPM of ≥135/85 mm Hg as the diagnostic threshold, AOBP sensitivity and specificity after 5 minutes of rest were 71.0% and 54.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence or absence of a clinic attendant during AOBP measurement and the amount of rest time before AOBP measurements had no effects on BP. AOBP measurements have low sensitivity and specificity for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Does This Adult Patient Have Hypertension?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Office blood pressure (BP) measurements are not the most accurate method to diagnose hypertension. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) are out-of-office alternatives, and ABPM is considered the reference standard for BP assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the accuracy of oscillometric office and home BP measurement methods for correctly classifying adults as having hypertension, defined using ABPM.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and DARE databases and the American Heart Association website (from inception to April 2021) were searched, along with reference lists from retrieved articles.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently abstracted raw data and assessed methodological quality. A third author resolved disputes as needed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Random effects summary sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for BP measurement methods for the diagnosis of hypertension. ABPM (24-hour mean BP ≥130/80 mm Hg or mean BP while awake ≥135/85 mm Hg) was considered the reference standard.

RESULTS

A total of 12 cross-sectional studies (n = 6877) that compared conventional oscillometric office BP measurements to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM and 6 studies (n = 2049) that compared mean BP on HBPM to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM were included (range, 117-2209 participants per analysis); 2 of these studies (n = 3040) used consecutive samples. The overall prevalence of hypertension identified by 24-hour ABPM was 49% (95% CI, 39%-60%) in the pooled studies that evaluated office measures and 54% (95% CI, 39%-69%) in studies that evaluated HBPM. All included studies assessed sensitivity and specificity at the office BP threshold of 140/90 mm Hg and the home BP threshold of 135/85 mm Hg. Conventional office oscillometric measurement (1-5 measurements in a single visit with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 51% (95% CI, 36%-67%), specificity of 88% (95% CI, 80%-96%), positive LR of 4.2 (95% CI, 2.5-6.0), and negative LR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.69). Mean BP with HBPM (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-86%), specificity of 76% (95% CI, 65%-86%), positive LR of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.0), and negative LR of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.20-0.47). Two studies (1 with a consecutive sample) that compared unattended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had sensitivity ranging from 48% to 51% and specificity ranging from 80% to 91%. One study that compared attended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had a sensitivity of 87.6% (95% CI, 83%-92%) and specificity of 24.1% (95% CI, 16%-32%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Office measurements of BP may not be accurate enough to rule in or rule out hypertension; HBPM may be helpful to confirm a diagnosis. When there is uncertainty around threshold values or when office and HBPM are not in agreement, 24-hour ABPM should be considered to establish the diagnosis.