Tonya L Breaux-Shropshire, Eric Judd, Lee A Vucovich, Toneyell S Shropshire, Sonal Singh
{"title":"家庭血压监测能改善病人的预后吗?比较家庭和动态血压监测对血压控制和患者预后的系统综述。","authors":"Tonya L Breaux-Shropshire, Eric Judd, Lee A Vucovich, Toneyell S Shropshire, Sonal Singh","doi":"10.2147/IBPC.S49205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) on blood pressure (BP) control and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review was conducted. We also appraised the methodological quality of studies.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL).</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, observational studies, and case-control studies published in English from any year to present that describe HBPM and 24-hour ABPM and report on systolic and/or diastolic BP and/or heart attack, stroke, kidney failure and/or all-cause mortality for adult patients. Due to the nature of the question, studies with only untreated patients were not considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,742 titles and abstractions independently reviewed by two reviewers, 137 studies met predetermined criteria for evaluation. Nineteen studies were identified as relevant and included in the paper. The common themes were that HBPM and ABPM correlated with cardiovascular events and mortality, and targeting HBPM or ABPM resulted in similar outcomes. Associations between BP measurement type and mortality differed by study population. Both the low sensitivity of office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) to detect optimal BP control by ABPM and the added association of HBPM with cardiovascular mortality supported the routine use of HBPM in clinical practice. There was insufficient data to determine the benefit of using HBPM as a measurement standard for BP control.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HBPM encourages patient-centered care and improves BP control and patient outcomes. Given the limited number of studies with both HBPM and ABPM, these measurement types should be incorporated into the design of randomized clinical trials within hypertensive populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":45299,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Blood Pressure Control","volume":"8 ","pages":"43-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/IBPC.S49205","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does home blood pressure monitoring improve patient outcomes? A systematic review comparing home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure control and patient outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Tonya L Breaux-Shropshire, Eric Judd, Lee A Vucovich, Toneyell S Shropshire, Sonal Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/IBPC.S49205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) on blood pressure (BP) control and patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic review was conducted. We also appraised the methodological quality of studies.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL).</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, observational studies, and case-control studies published in English from any year to present that describe HBPM and 24-hour ABPM and report on systolic and/or diastolic BP and/or heart attack, stroke, kidney failure and/or all-cause mortality for adult patients. Due to the nature of the question, studies with only untreated patients were not considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1,742 titles and abstractions independently reviewed by two reviewers, 137 studies met predetermined criteria for evaluation. Nineteen studies were identified as relevant and included in the paper. The common themes were that HBPM and ABPM correlated with cardiovascular events and mortality, and targeting HBPM or ABPM resulted in similar outcomes. Associations between BP measurement type and mortality differed by study population. Both the low sensitivity of office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) to detect optimal BP control by ABPM and the added association of HBPM with cardiovascular mortality supported the routine use of HBPM in clinical practice. There was insufficient data to determine the benefit of using HBPM as a measurement standard for BP control.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HBPM encourages patient-centered care and improves BP control and patient outcomes. Given the limited number of studies with both HBPM and ABPM, these measurement types should be incorporated into the design of randomized clinical trials within hypertensive populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrated Blood Pressure Control\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"43-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/IBPC.S49205\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrated Blood Pressure Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/IBPC.S49205\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Blood Pressure Control","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IBPC.S49205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34
摘要
目的:我们的目的是比较家庭血压监测(HBPM)和24小时动态血压监测(ABPM)在血压控制和患者预后方面的临床效果。设计:进行系统评价。我们还评估了研究的方法学质量。数据来源:PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (Central)。纳入标准:随机对照试验,前瞻性和回顾性队列研究,观察性研究,以及从任何年份至今发表的英文病例对照研究,这些研究描述了HBPM和24小时ABPM,并报告了收缩压和/或舒张压和/或心脏病发作,中风,肾衰竭和/或全因死亡率。由于问题的性质,未考虑仅对未经治疗的患者进行研究。结果:在两位审稿人独立评审的1742篇标题和摘要中,有137篇研究符合预定的评价标准。19项研究被确定为相关并纳入论文。共同的主题是HBPM和ABPM与心血管事件和死亡率相关,靶向HBPM或ABPM导致相似的结果。血压测量类型与死亡率之间的关系因研究人群而异。办公室血压监测(OBPM)通过ABPM检测最佳血压控制的低灵敏度以及HBPM与心血管死亡率的附加关联都支持HBPM在临床实践中的常规使用。没有足够的数据来确定使用HBPM作为血压控制的测量标准的好处。结论:HBPM鼓励以患者为中心的护理,改善血压控制和患者预后。鉴于HBPM和ABPM的研究数量有限,这些测量类型应纳入高血压人群随机临床试验的设计中。
Does home blood pressure monitoring improve patient outcomes? A systematic review comparing home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure control and patient outcomes.
Objective: Our objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) on blood pressure (BP) control and patient outcomes.
Design: A systematic review was conducted. We also appraised the methodological quality of studies.
Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL).
Inclusion criteria: Randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, observational studies, and case-control studies published in English from any year to present that describe HBPM and 24-hour ABPM and report on systolic and/or diastolic BP and/or heart attack, stroke, kidney failure and/or all-cause mortality for adult patients. Due to the nature of the question, studies with only untreated patients were not considered.
Results: Of 1,742 titles and abstractions independently reviewed by two reviewers, 137 studies met predetermined criteria for evaluation. Nineteen studies were identified as relevant and included in the paper. The common themes were that HBPM and ABPM correlated with cardiovascular events and mortality, and targeting HBPM or ABPM resulted in similar outcomes. Associations between BP measurement type and mortality differed by study population. Both the low sensitivity of office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) to detect optimal BP control by ABPM and the added association of HBPM with cardiovascular mortality supported the routine use of HBPM in clinical practice. There was insufficient data to determine the benefit of using HBPM as a measurement standard for BP control.
Conclusion: HBPM encourages patient-centered care and improves BP control and patient outcomes. Given the limited number of studies with both HBPM and ABPM, these measurement types should be incorporated into the design of randomized clinical trials within hypertensive populations.