4.2 Article

Reasons for therapeutic inertia when managing hypertension in clinical practice in non-Western countries

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 151-159

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2008.117

关键词

risk factors; clinical practice; goal; inertia; guidelines

资金

  1. Sanofi-Aventis Intercontinental

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insufficient awareness of hypertension guidelines by physicians may be an impediment to achieving adequate blood pressure (BP) control rates in clinical practice. We therefore conducted an open intervention survey among primary care physicians in 1596 centres from 16 countries in four different continents to prospectively assess what is the BP goal defined by physicians for individual patients and what are the reasons for not intensifying antihypertensive treatment when BP goals are not achieved. Enrolled patients (N = 35 302) were either not treated to goal (N 22 887) or previously untreated (N = 12 250). Baseline systolic and diastolic BP averaged 159/95 +/- 15/12 mm Hg. BP goals defined by physicians averaged 136 +/- 6 mm Hg for systolic and 86 +/- 5 mm Hg for diastolic BP. Patients' individual risk stratification determined BP goals. At last visit BP averaged 132/81 +/- 11/8 mm Hg and values of <= 140/90 were reached in 92% of untreated and 80% of previously uncontrolled treated hypertensives. The main reasons for not intensifying antihypertensive treatment when BP remained above goal were the assumption that the time after starting the new drug was too short to attain its full effect, the satisfaction with a clear improvement of BP or with a BP nearing the goal, and the acceptance of good self-measurements. In this open intervention program in primary care, a large proportion of patients achieved recommended BP goals. The belief that a clear improvement in BP is acceptable and that the full drug effect may take up to several weeks to be reached are frequent reasons for treatment inertia when goals are not achieved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据