4.2 Article

Blood pressure levels and control in Italy: comprehensive analysis of clinical data from 2000-2005 and 2005-2011 hypertension surveys

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
Volume 29, Issue 11, Pages 696-701

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2015.4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This analysis is aimed to determine blood pressure (BP) levels and BP control rates in a large population of hypertensive patients in Italy. Data were taken from two large and inclusive cross-sectional surveys, which covered two distinct and subsequent time periods (2000-2005 and 2005-2011, respectively). Observational clinical studies and surveys, which reported average systolic/diastolic clinic BP levels, proportions of treated/untreated and controlled/uncontrolled patients, and prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in hypertensive patients followed in either outpatient clinics, hypertension centres or general practice, were considered for the analyses. The overall sample included 211 591 hypertensive patients (119 997 (56.7%) women, age 57.0 +/- 10.0 years, body mass index 26.9 +/- 4.0 kg m(-2), BP levels 146.9 +/- 16.7/88.7 +/- 9.6 mm Hg). BP levels were 148.2 +/- 15.4/87.5 +/- 9.3 mm Hg in patients followed by general practitioners (n = 168 313, 79.5%), 148.1 +/- 17.3/90.1 +/- 9.7 mm Hg in those followed by hypertension centres (n = 28 180, 13.3%), and 142.4 +/- 17.6/86.6 +/- 9.8 mm Hg in those followed by outpatient clinics and hospital divisions (n = 15 098, 7.1%). Among treated hypertensive patients (n = 128 079; 60.5%), 43 008 (33.6%) were reported to have controlled BP levels. Over one decade of observation, we reported that similar to 60% of hypertensive patients were treated and among these only 33% achieved effective BP control. These findings highlight the need for more effective interventions to improve management of hypertension in Italy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available