4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Repeated evening home blood pressure measurement improves prognostic significance for stroke: a 12-year follow-up of the Ohasama study

期刊

BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 93-98

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0b013e32832a9d91

关键词

evening home blood pressure; general population; home blood pressure; measurement number; Ohasama study; stroke

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21390201] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To compare the Predictive power of home blood pressure (HBP) measured in the evening (E-HBP) and that of casual screening BP (CBP) for stroke risk in relation to the number of E-HBP measurements. Methods We obtained E-HBP (measured once in the evening just before going to bed for 4 weeks) and CBP (measured twice during the health checkup) from 2234 Japanese participants aged >= 35 years who had no history of a previous stroke. The participants were followed-up for a median duration of 11.9 years. The multivariate adjusted relative hazard (RH) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each 10 mmHg (systolic) or 5 mmHg (diastolic) increase in BP was determined by Cox regression model. Results There were 226 incidences of stroke. Even the initial E-HBP values significantly predicted future stroke events (systolic RH = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.11-1.28; diastolic RH = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.06-1.19), and the predictive power of E-HBP increased progressively with the increased number of measurements. When initial systolic E-HBP and systolic CBP values were simultaneously included into the Cox model, only initial E-HBP was significantly related with stroke risk (E-HBP RH=1.17,95% CI=1.08-1.26; CBP RH=1.07,95% CI=0.99-1.15). Conclusion E-HBP has a stronger predictive power than CBP regardless of the number of measurements. Our findings emphasize the important clinical significance of E-HBP over CBP, even though the measurement conditions of E-HBP are generally less strict than that of morning HBP measurements. Blood Press Monit 14:93-98 (C) 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.0
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