4.2 Article

Primary care physicians behaviour on hypertensive patients with poor blood pressure control. The PRESCAP 2006 study.

期刊

REVISTA CLINICA ESPANOLA
卷 208, 期 8, 页码 393-399

出版社

EDICIONES DOYMA S A
DOI: 10.1157/13126341

关键词

hypertension; blood pressure control; physicians behavior; Primary Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. There is little information available on Therapeutic Inertia in Primary Care (PC). This study aimed to know the therapeutic behavior of the physician for uncontrolled hypertensive patients. Patients and methods. Cross-sectional, multicenter study that included hypertensive patients of both genders, under pharmacological treatment who were recruited consecutively in the PC out-patient clinic in all of Spain. Social-demographic, clinical and treatment data were recorded, as well as the motives for eventual therapeutic modification. Adequate BP control was considered when BP values were below 140/90 mmHg in general, and below 130/80 mmHg in diabetes, renal insufficiency or cardiovascular disease. Results. A total of 10,520 patients (53.7% women) were included with average age of 64.6 (11.3 years). Of these, 44.4% the patients were receiving monotherapy and 55.6% were treated with combined therapy (two drugs 41.2%, three drugs 11.7%, and more than three 2.8%). Uncontrolled hypertension was found in 58.6% (95% CI. 57.6-59.5) of the patients. Treatment was modified by physicians in 30.4% (95% CI. 29.2-31.6) of the uncontrolled patients, combination with another drug being the most frequent behavior (46.3%), followed by dose increase (26.1%), and antihypertensive drug switch (22.8%). The perception of the physician of good BP control was the factor most associated with not modifying the treatment in uncontrolled patients. Conclusions. Study results showed that the PC physician modified antihypertensive treatment in only 3 out of 10 uncontrolled patients. When treatment modification was made, association of drugs was the most frequent behavior.

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