Evidence mapPaperPMID 38847237Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal2024

Office measurement vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: associations with mortality in patients with or without diabetes.

Michael Böhm, Alejandro de la Sierra, Felix Mahfoud, Igor Schwantke, Lucas Lauder, Bernhard Haring, Ernest Vinyoles, Manuel Gorostidi, Julián Segura, Bryan Williams and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Arterial hypertension-clinical trials update 2024.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Michael BöhmKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 1, Homburg/Saar 66421, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2976-2514
Alejandro de la SierraDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Mutua Terrassa, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Felix MahfoudKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 1, Homburg/Saar 66421, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4425-549X
Igor SchwantkeKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 1, Homburg/Saar 66421, Germany.
Lucas LauderKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 1, Homburg/Saar 66421, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1434-9556
Bernhard HaringKlinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 1, Homburg/Saar 66421, Germany.
Ernest VinyolesLa Mina Primary Care Center, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Manuel GorostidiDepartment of Nephrology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, RedinRen, Oviedo, Spain.
Julián SeguraHypertension Unit, Department of Nephrology, and Cardiorenal Translational Research Laboratory, Institute of Research, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre and CIBER of Cardiovascular Disease, Madrid, Spain.
Bryan WilliamsInstitute of Cardiovascular Sciences and National Institute of Health Research, UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre London, University College London (UCL), London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8094-1841
Natalie StaplinMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Luis M RuilopeHypertension Unit, Cardiorenal Translational Research Laboratory, Institute of Research, and CIBER of Cardiovascular Disease, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre and CIBER of Cardiovascular Disease, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

British Heart Foundation Center for Research ExcellenceCare Research Biomedical Research CentersEuropean government agenciesGerman Research Foundation 322900939Health Data Research UKLacer LaboratoriesNational Institute of HealthOxfordSpanish Society of HypertensionUK Medical Research CouncilUniversity College London Hospitals
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsGuidelines suggest similar blood pressure (BP) targets in patients with and without diabetes and recommend ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to diagnose and classify hypertension. It was explored whether different levels of ambulatory and office BP and different hypertension phenotypes associate with differences of risk in diabetes and no diabetes.

methodsThis analysis assessed outcome data from the Spanish ABPM Registry in 59 124 patients with complete available data. The associations between office, mean, daytime, and nighttime ambulatory BP with the risk in patients with or without diabetes were explored. The effects of diabetes on mortality in different hypertension phenotypes, i.e. sustained hypertension, white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, compared with normotension were studied. Analyses were done with Cox regression analyses and adjusted for demographic and clinical confounders.

resultsA total of 59 124 patients were recruited from 223 primary care centres in Spain. The majority had an office systolic BP >140 mmHg (36 700 patients), and 23 128 (40.6%) patients were untreated. Diabetes was diagnosed in 11 391 patients (19.2%). Concomitant cardiovascular (CV) disease was present in 2521 patients (23.1%) with diabetes and 4616 (10.0%) without diabetes. Twenty-four-hour mean, daytime, and nighttime ambulatory BP were associated with increased risk in diabetes and no diabetes, while in office BP, there was no clear association with no differences with and without diabetes. While the relative association of BP to CV death risk was similar in diabetes compared with no diabetes (mean interaction P = .80, daytime interaction P = .97, and nighttime interaction P = .32), increased event rates occurred in diabetes for all ABPM parameters for CV death and all-cause death. White-coat hypertension was not associated with risk for CV death (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.03) and slightly reduced risk for all-cause death in no diabetes (hazard ratio 0.89; confidence interval 0.81-0.98) but without significant interaction between diabetes and no diabetes. Sustained hypertension and masked hypertension in diabetes and no diabetes were associated with even higher risk. There were no significant interactions in hypertensive phenotypes between diabetes and no diabetes and CV death risk (interaction P = .26), while some interaction was present for all-cause death (interaction P = .043) and non-CV death (interaction P = .053).

conclusionsDiabetes increased the risk for all-cause death, CV, and non-CV death at every level of office and ambulatory BP. Masked and sustained hypertension confer to the highest risk, while white-coat hypertension appears grossly neutral without interaction of relative risk between diabetes and no diabetes. These results support recommendations of international guidelines for strict BP control and using ABPM for classification and assessment of risk and control of hypertension, particularly in patients with diabetes. CLINICAL

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHypertensionAgedBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationDiabetes MellitusFemaleHumansMaleMasked HypertensionMiddle AgedOffice VisitsSpainWhite Coat HypertensionAmbulatory blood pressure monitoringCardiovascular deathDiabetesHypertension

Identifiers

PMID38847237
PMCPMC11328865

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.