Using out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: a secondary analysis of data from two blood pressure monitoring studies

Absolute cardiovascular risk assessment using 'real world' clinic blood pressures compared to standardized unobserved and ambulatory methods: an observational study

Clinic blood pressure (BP) is recommended for absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment. However, in 'real-world' settings, clinic BP measurement is unstandardised and less reliable compared to more rigorous methods but the impact for absolute CVD risk assessment is unknown. This study aimed to determine the difference in absolute CVD risk assessment using real-world clinic BP compared to standardised BP methods. Participants were patients (n = 226, 59 ± 15 years; 58% female) with hypertension referred to a BP clinic for assessment. 'Real-world' clinic BP was provided by the referring doctor. All participants had unobserved automated office BP (AOBP) and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) measured at the clinic. Absolute CVD risk was calculated (Framingham) using systolic BP from the referring doctor (clinic BP), AOBP and ABPM, with agreement assessed by Kappa statistic. Clinic systolic BP was 18 mmHg than AOBP and daytime ABPM and 22 mmHg higher than 24-h ABPM (p < 0.001). Subsequently, absolute CVD risk scores using clinic BP were higher compared to AOBP, daytime ABPM and 24-h ABPM (10.4 ± 8.1%, 7.8 ± 6.4%, 7.8 ± 6.3%, and 7.3 ± 6.1%, respectively, P < 0.001). As a result, more participants were classified as high CVD risk using clinic BP (n = 89, 40%) compared with AOBP (n = 44, 20%) daytime ABPM (n = 38, 17%) and 24-h ABPM (n = 38, 17%) (p < 0.001) with weak agreement in risk classification (κ = 0.57[0.45-0.69], κ = 0.52[0.41-0.64] and κ = 0.55[0.43-0.66], respectively). Real-world clinic BP was higher and classified twice as many participants at high CVD risk compared to AOBP or ABPM. Given the challenges to high-quality BP measurement in clinic, more rigorous BP measurement methods are needed for absolute CVD risk assessment.

Higher Framingham Risk Scores are associated with greater loss of brain volume over time in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the association between comorbidities associated with increased vascular risk and brain volume changes in multiple sclerosis (MS). To date, findings have not been consistent with respect to which comorbidities are associated with lower brain volumes or whether comorbidities associated with increased vascular risk are associated with greater brain volume loss over time.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the association between the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) which evaluates vascular risk and normalized whole brain volume in MS.

METHODS

We included 98 participants with MS who underwent two brain MRIs two years apart, from which whole brain volumes were calculated. Each participant reported their comorbidities and medications taken. Blood pressure, height and weight were recorded and we calculated the FRS. We tested the association between the FRS at baseline and brain volume at the second time point using quantile regression adjusting for baseline normalized brain volume, age, gender and use of disease-modifying therapy.

RESULTS

As the FRS increased, brain volume was lower, both at enrollment (β= -0.24; 95%CI: -0.42, -0.04) and at follow-up (-0.27; 95%CI: -0.45, -0.08). After further adjustment for age, gender, and use of disease modifying therapy, higher FRS remained associated with lower brain volume at follow-up at the 90th percentile of brain volume (β= -2.22; 95%CI: -3.40, -1.04) but not at the 10th or 50th percentiles.

CONCLUSION

Higher FRS were associated with lower brain volumes in persons with MS at baseline, and with brain volume loss over time. This effect was most pronounced for persons with higher brain volumes at baseline, which suggests that prevention, detection and effective management of comorbidities associated with vascular risk in people with MS is particularly important early in the disease course.

The potential for overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis because of blood pressure variability: a comparison of the 2017 ACC/AHA, 2018 ESC/ESH and 2019 NICE hypertension guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the extent that BP measurement variability may drive over- and underdiagnosis of 'hypertension' when measurements are made according to current guidelines.

METHODS

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and empirical estimates of within-person variability, we simulated annual SBP measurement sets for 1 000 000 patients over 5 years. For each measurement set, we used an average of multiple readings, as recommended by guidelines.

RESULTS

The mean true SBP for the simulated population was 118.8 mmHg with a standard deviation of 17.5 mmHg. The proportion overdiagnosed with 'hypertension' after five sets of office or nonoffice measurements using the 2017 American College of Cardiology guideline was 3-5% for people with a true SBP less than 120 mmHg, and 65-72% for people with a true SBP 120-130 mmHg. These proportions were less than 1% and 14-33% using the 2018 European Society of Hypertension and 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (true SBP <120 and 120-130 mmHg, respectively). The proportion underdiagnosed with 'hypertension' was less than 3% for people with true SBP at least 140 mmHg after one set of office or nonoffice measurements using the 2017 American College of Cardiology guideline, and less than 18% using the other two guidelines.

CONCLUSION

More people are at risk of overdiagnosis under the 2017 American College of Cardiology guideline than the other two guidelines, even if nonoffice measurements are used. Making clinical decisions about cardiovascular prediction based primarily on absolute risk, minimizes the impact of blood pressure variability on overdiagnosis.

Clinical applications for out-of-office blood pressure monitoring

Hypertension is one of the most common chronic diseases as well as the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Efficient screening and accurate blood pressure (BP) monitoring are the basic methods of detection and management. However, with developments in electronic technology, BP measurement and monitoring are no longer limited to the physician's office. Epidemiological and clinical studies have documented strong evidence for the efficacy of out-of-office BP monitoring in multiple fields for managing hypertension and CVD. This review discusses applications for out-of-office BP monitoring, including home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), based on recent epidemiological data and clinical studies regarding the following factors: the detection of abnormal BP phenotypes, namely, white coat hypertension and masked hypertension; stronger ability to determine the prognosis for target organ damage and mortality; better BP control; screening for hypotension; and unique approaches to identifying circadian BP patterns and BP variability.