4.7 Article

Prediction of stroke by home morning versus evening blood pressure values - The Ohasama study

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 48, 期 4, 页码 737-743

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000240332.01877.11

关键词

self-measurement; home blood pressure; stroke; general population; morning-home blood pressure; evening-home blood pressure; Ohasama study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predictive power of self-measured blood pressure at home (home BP) for cardiovascular disease risk has been reported to be higher than casual-screening BP. However, the differential prognostic significance of home BP in the morning (morning BP) and in the evening (evening BP), respectively, has not been elucidated. In the Ohasama study, 1766 subjects (>= 40 years) were followed up for an average of I I years. The predictive power for stroke incidence of evening BP was compared with that of morning BP as continuous variables. The Cox regression model demonstrated that evening BP and morning BP predicted future stroke risk equally. Subjects were also assigned to I of 4 categories based on home BP. In this analysis, stroke risk in morning hypertension ([HT] morning BP >= 135/85 mm Hg and evening BP < 135/85 mm Hg; relative hazard (RH): 2.66; 95% Cl: 1.64 to 4.33) and that in sustained HT(morning BP and evening BP >= 135/85 min Hg; RH: 2.38; 95% Cl: 1.65 to 3.45) was significantly higher than that in normotension (morning BP and evening BP < 135/85 min Hg). The risk in morning HT was more remarkable in subjects taking antihypertensive medication (RH: 3.55; 95% Cl: 1.70 to 7.38). Although the risk in evening HT (morning BP < 135/85 mm Hg and evening BP >= 135/85 min Hg) was higher than that in normotension, the differences were not significant. In conclusion, morning BP and evening BP provide equally useful information for stroke risk, whereas morning HT, which indicates HT specifically observed in the morning, might be a good predictor of stroke, particularly among individuals using anti-HT medication.

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

4.7
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