Using out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: a secondary analysis of data from two blood pressure monitoring studies

Sarah Lay-Flurrie*, Richard Stevens, Peter de Leeuw, Abraham Kroon, Sheila Greenfield, Mohammed Mohammed, Paramjit Gill, Willem Verberk, Richard McManus

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Web of Science)
18 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background

Blood pressure (BP) measurement is increasingly carried out through home or ambulatory monitoring, yet existing cardiovascular risk scores were developed for use with measurements obtained in clinics.

Aim

To describe differences in cardiovascular risk estimates obtained using ambulatory or home BP measurements instead of clinic readings.

Design and setting

Secondary analysis of data from adults aged 25-84 years in the UK and the Netherlands without prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in two BP monitoring studies: the Blood Pressure in different Ethnic groups (BP-Eth) study and the Home versus Office blood pressure MEasurements: Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study (HOMERUS).

Method

The primary comparison was Framingham risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Statistical significance was determined using non-parametric tests.

Results

In 442 BP-Eth patients (mean age = 58 years, 50% female [n = 222]) the median absolute difference in 10-year Framingham cardiovascular risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements was 1.84% (interquartile range [IQR] 0.65-3.63, P = 0.67). In 165 HOMERUS patients (mean age = 56 years, 46% female) the median absolute difference in 10-year risk for daytime ambulatory BP was 2.76% (IQR 1.19-6.39, P<0.001) and only 8 out of 165 (4.8%) of patients were reclassified.

Conclusion

Estimates of cardiovascular risk are similar when calculated using BP measurements obtained as in the risk score derivation study or through ambulatory monitoring. Further research is required to determine if differences in estimated risk would meaningfully influence risk score accuracy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E381-E388
Number of pages8
JournalBritish Journal of General Practice
Volume69
Issue number683
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2019

Keywords

  • blood pressure
  • myocardial infarction
  • primary health care
  • risk
  • stroke
  • HYPERTENSION
  • MANAGEMENT
  • METAANALYSIS
  • GUIDELINES
  • DISEASE
  • SOCIETY
  • VALIDATION
  • PREVENTION
  • DIAGNOSIS
  • ENGLAND

Cite this