4.6 Review

Interpretation of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring for Risk Stratification in Hypertensive Patients: The 'Ambulatory Does Prediction Valid (ADPV)' Approach

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13091601

关键词

hypertension; blood pressure; ambulatory blood pressure; ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; prognosis; epidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several outcome-based prospective investigations have shown the prognostic value of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in cardiovascular risk stratification. Average 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime blood pressures are essential components that improve risk assessment beyond traditional factors. However, the interpretation and clinical use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring need standardization, and implementing its results in individual patient management remains challenging.
Several outcome-based prospective investigations have provided solid data which support the prognostic value of 24 h ambulatory blood pressure over and beyond cardiovascular traditional risk factors. Average 24 h, daytime, and nighttime blood pressures are the principal components of the ambulatory blood pressure profile that have improved cardiovascular risk stratification beyond traditional risk factors. Furthermore, several additional ambulatory blood pressure measures have been investigated. The correct interpretation in clinical practice of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring needs a standardization of methods. Several algorithms for its clinical use have been proposed. Implementation of the results of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the management of individual subjects with the aim of improving risk stratification is challenging. We suggest that clinicians should focus attention on ambulatory blood pressure components which have been proven to act as the main independent predictors of outcome (average 24 h, daytime, and nighttime blood pressure, pulse pressure, dipping status, BP variability).

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

4.6
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