Jouni K. Johansson

Home-Measured Blood Pressure Is a Stronger Predictor of Cardiovascular Risk Than Office Blood Pressure

Previous studies with some limitations have provided equivocal results for the prognostic significance of home-measured blood pressure (BP). We investigated whether home-measured BP is more strongly associated with cardiovascular events and total mortality than is office BP. A prospective nationwide study was initiated in 2000 to 2001 on 2081 randomly selected subjects aged 45 to 74 years. Home and office BP were determined at baseline along with other cardiovascular risk factors. The primary end point was incidence of a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The secondary end point was total mortality. After a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, 162 subjects had experienced a cardiovascular event, and 118 subjects had died. In Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for other cardiovascular risk factors, office BP (systolic/diastolic hazard ratio [HR] per 10/5 mm Hg increase in BP, 1.13/1.13; systolic/diastolic 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.22/1.05 to 1.22) and home BP (HR, 1.23/1.18; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.34/1.10 to 1.27) were predictive of cardiovascular events. However, when both BPs were simultaneously included in the models, only home BP (HR, 1.22/1.15; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.37/1.05 to 1.26), not office BP (HR, 1.01/1.06; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12/0.97 to 1.16), was predictive of cardiovascular events. Systolic home BP was the sole predictor of total mortality (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01/1.23). Our findings suggest that home-measured BP is prognostically superior to office BP. On the basis of the results of this and previous studies, it can be concluded that home BP measurement offers specific advantages more than conventional office measurement.

Prognostic Value of the Variability in Home-Measured Blood Pressure and Heart Rate: The Finn-Home Study

The objective of the study was to assess the prognostic value of variability in home-measured blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) in a general population. We studied a representative sample of the Finnish adult population with 1866 study subjects aged 45–74 years. BP and HR self-measurements were performed on 7 consecutive days. The variabilities of BP and HR were defined as the SDs of morning minus evening, day-by-day, and first minus second measurements. The primary end point was incidence of a cardiovascular event. The secondary end point was total mortality. During a follow-up of 7.8 years, 179 subjects had experienced a cardiovascular event, and 130 subjects had died. In Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, sex, BP/HR, and other cardiovascular risk factors, morning-evening home BP variability (systolic/diastolic relative hazard: 1.04/1.10 [95% CI: 1.01–1.07/1.05–1.15] per 1-mm Hg increase in BP variability) and morning day-by-day home BP variability (relative hazard: 1.04/1.10 [95% CI: 1.00–1.07/1.04–1.16] per 1-mm Hg increase in BP variability) were predictive of cardiovascular events. Morning-evening home HR variability (relative hazard: 1.07 [95% CI: 1.02–1.12] per 1-bpm increase in HR variability) and morning day-by-day home HR variability (relative hazard: 1.11 [95% CI: 1.05–1.17] per 1-bpm increase in HR variability) were also independent predictors of cardiovascular events. Greater variabilities of morning home BP and HR are independent predictors of cardiovascular events. Because the variabilities of home BP and HR are easily acquired in conjunction with home BP and HR level, they should be used as the additive information in the assessment of cardiovascular risk.

HOME-MEASURED BLOOD PRESSURE IS A STRONGER PREDICTOR OF CARDIOVASCULAR RISK THAN OFFICE BLOOD PRESSURE: THE FINN-HOME STUDY: 2A.02

Objective: Previous studies with some limitations have provided equivocal results for the prognostic significance of home-measured blood pressure (BP). We investigated whether home-measured BP is more strongly associated with cardiovascular events and total mortality than is office BP. Design and Methods: A prospective nationwide study was initiated in 2000–2001 on 2081 randomly selected subjects aged 45–74 years. Home and office BP were determined at baseline along with other cardiovascular risk factors. The primary endpoint was incidence of a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The secondary endpoint was total mortality. Results: After a mean follow-up of 6.8 years, 162 subjects had suffered a cardiovascular event and 118 subjects had died. In Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for other cardiovascular risk factors office BP (systolic/diastolic hazard ratio [HR] per 10/5 mmHg increase in BP, 1.13/1.13; systolic/diastolic 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.22/1.05–1.22) and home BP (HR, 1.23/1.18; 95% CI, 1.13–1.34/1.10–1.27) were predictive of cardiovascular events. However, when both BPs were simultaneously included in the models only home BP (HR, 1.22/1.15; 95% CI, 1.09–1.37/1.05–1.26), but not office BP (HR, 1.01/1.06; 95% CI, 0.92–1.12/0.97–1.16) was predictive of cardiovascular events. Systolic home BP was the sole predictor of total mortality (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01/1.23). Conclusions: Home-measured BP is prognostically superior to office BP. On the basis of the results from this and previous studies, it can be concluded that home BP measurement offers specific advantages over conventional office measurement.

Prognosis of white-coat and masked hypertension: International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome.

Home blood pressure monitoring is useful in detecting white-coat and masked hypertension and is recommended for patients with suspected or treated hypertension. The prognostic significance of white-coat and masked hypertension detected by home measurement was investigated in 6458 participants from 5 populations enrolled in the International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes. During a median follow-up of 8.3 years, 714 fatal plus nonfatal cardiovascular events occurred. Among untreated subjects (n=5007), cardiovascular risk was higher in those with white-coat hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio 1.42; 95% CI [1.06–1.91]; P=0.02), masked hypertension (1.55; 95% CI [1.12–2.14]; P<0.01) and sustained hypertension (2.13; 95% CI [1.66–2.73]; P<0.0001) compared with normotensive subjects. Among treated patients (n=1451), the cardiovascular risk did not differ between those with high office and low home blood pressure (white-coat) and treated controlled subjects (low office and home blood pressure; 1.16; 95% CI [0.79–1.72]; P=0.45). However, treated subjects with masked hypertension (low office and high home blood pressure; 1.76; 95% CI [1.23–2.53]; P=0.002) and uncontrolled hypertension (high office and home blood pressure; 1.40; 95% CI [1.02–1.94]; P=0.04) had higher cardiovascular risk than treated controlled patients. In conclusion, white-coat hypertension assessed by home measurements is a cardiovascular risk factor in untreated but not in treated subjects probably because the latter receive effective treatment on the basis of their elevated office blood pressure. In contrast, masked uncontrolled hypertension is associated with increased cardiovascular risk in both untreated and treated patients, who are probably undertreated because of their low office blood pressure.Home blood pressure monitoring is useful in detecting white-coat and masked hypertension and is recommended for patients with suspected or treated hypertension. The prognostic significance of white-coat and masked hypertension detected by home measurement was investigated in 6458 participants from 5 populations enrolled in the International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes. During a median follow-up of 8.3 years, 714 fatal plus nonfatal cardiovascular events occurred. Among untreated subjects (n=5007), cardiovascular risk was higher in those with white-coat hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio 1.42; 95% CI [1.06–1.91]; P =0.02), masked hypertension (1.55; 95% CI [1.12–2.14]; P <0.01) and sustained hypertension (2.13; 95% CI [1.66–2.73]; P <0.0001) compared with normotensive subjects. Among treated patients (n=1451), the cardiovascular risk did not differ between those with high office and low home blood pressure (white-coat) and treated controlled subjects (low office and home blood pressure; 1.16; 95% CI [0.79–1.72]; P =0.45). However, treated subjects with masked hypertension (low office and high home blood pressure; 1.76; 95% CI [1.23–2.53]; P =0.002) and uncontrolled hypertension (high office and home blood pressure; 1.40; 95% CI [1.02–1.94]; P =0.04) had higher cardiovascular risk than treated controlled patients. In conclusion, white-coat hypertension assessed by home measurements is a cardiovascular risk factor in untreated but not in treated subjects probably because the latter receive effective treatment on the basis of their elevated office blood pressure. In contrast, masked uncontrolled hypertension is associated with increased cardiovascular risk in both untreated and treated patients, who are probably undertreated because of their low office blood pressure. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-34}

Outcome-Driven Thresholds for Home Blood Pressure Measurement: International Database of HOme blood pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome

The lack of outcome-driven operational thresholds limits the clinical application of home blood pressure (BP) measurement. Our objective was to determine an outcome-driven reference frame for home BP measurement. We measured home and clinic BP in 6470 participants (mean age, 59.3 years; 56.9% women; 22.4% on antihypertensive treatment) recruited in Ohasama, Japan (n=2520); Montevideo, Uruguay (n=399); Tsurugaya, Japan (n=811); Didima, Greece (n=665); and nationwide in Finland (n=2075). In multivariable-adjusted analyses of individual subject data, we determined home BP thresholds, which yielded 10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated with stages 1 (120/80 mm Hg) and 2 (130/85 mm Hg) prehypertension, and stages 1 (140/90 mm Hg) and 2 (160/100 mm Hg) hypertension on clinic measurement. During 8.3 years of follow-up (median), 716 cardiovascular end points, 294 cardiovascular deaths, 393 strokes, and 336 cardiac events occurred in the whole cohort; in untreated participants these numbers were 414, 158, 225, and 194, respectively. In the whole cohort, outcome-driven systolic/diastolic thresholds for the home BP corresponding with stages 1 and 2 prehypertension and stages 1 and 2 hypertension were 121.4/77.7, 127.4/79.9, 133.4/82.2, and 145.4/86.8 mm Hg; in 5018 untreated participants, these thresholds were 118.5/76.9, 125.2/79.7, 131.9/82.4, and 145.3/87.9 mm Hg, respectively. Rounded thresholds for stages 1 and 2 prehypertension and stages 1 and 2 hypertension amounted to 120/75, 125/80, 130/85, and 145/90 mm Hg, respectively. Population-based outcome-driven thresholds for home BP are slightly lower than those currently proposed in hypertension guidelines. Our current findings could inform guidelines and help clinicians in diagnosing and managing patients. # Novelty and Significance {#article-title-32}The lack of outcome-driven operational thresholds limits the clinical application of home blood pressure (BP) measurement. Our objective was to determine an outcome-driven reference frame for home BP measurement. We measured home and clinic BP in 6470 participants (mean age, 59.3 years; 56.9% women; 22.4% on antihypertensive treatment) recruited in Ohasama, Japan (n=2520); Montevideo, Uruguay (n=399); Tsurugaya, Japan (n=811); Didima, Greece (n=665); and nationwide in Finland (n=2075). In multivariable-adjusted analyses of individual subject data, we determined home BP thresholds, which yielded 10-year cardiovascular risks similar to those associated with stages 1 (120/80 mm Hg) and 2 (130/85 mm Hg) prehypertension, and stages 1 (140/90 mm Hg) and 2 (160/100 mm Hg) hypertension on clinic measurement. During 8.3 years of follow-up (median), 716 cardiovascular end points, 294 cardiovascular deaths, 393 strokes, and 336 cardiac events occurred in the whole cohort; in untreated participants these numbers were 414, 158, 225, and 194, respectively. In the whole cohort, outcome-driven systolic/diastolic thresholds for the home BP corresponding with stages 1 and 2 prehypertension and stages 1 and 2 hypertension were 121.4/77.7, 127.4/79.9, 133.4/82.2, and 145.4/86.8 mm Hg; in 5018 untreated participants, these thresholds were 118.5/76.9, 125.2/79.7, 131.9/82.4, and 145.3/87.9 mm Hg, respectively. Rounded thresholds for stages 1 and 2 prehypertension and stages 1 and 2 hypertension amounted to 120/75, 125/80, 130/85, and 145/90 mm Hg, respectively. Population-based outcome-driven thresholds for home BP are slightly lower than those currently proposed in hypertension guidelines. Our current findings could inform guidelines and help clinicians in diagnosing and managing patients.

Prognostic significance of masked and white-coat hypertension in the general population: the Finn-Home Study.

Objective: The clinical significance of masked and white-coat hypertension is still somewhat controversial. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prognosis of masked and white-coat hypertension using home blood pressure (BP) measurement. Design and methods: A nationwide population sample (n = 2046, age 44–74 years) underwent office (duplicate measurements on one visit by a nurse) and home (duplicate measurements on 7 days) BP measurements and risk factor evaluation. During the follow-up of 7.5 years, 221 fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events and 142 all-cause deaths occurred. Masked hypertension was defined as office BP less than 140/90 mmHg with home BP at least 135/85 mmHg. Results: The prevalence of baseline risk factors and the incidence of cardiovascular events and all-cause deaths increased from normotension to white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension. Unadjusted hazard ratios for white-coat hypertension were 1.18 (P = 0.5) for cardiovascular events and 1.23 (P = 0.5) for all-cause deaths. Masked hypertension had a significantly higher age-adjusted risk of cardiovascular events and a higher risk of all-cause mortality after adjustment for age, sex and office BP than normotension (hazard ratios 1.64, P = 0.05, and 2.09, P = 0.01). Masked hypertension lost its predictive significance after adjustment for home BP or concomitant other cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusion: Neither masked nor white-coat hypertension was an independent predictor of cardiovascular risk or all-cause mortality when concomitant other risk factors or baseline home BP levels were taken into account. The present study suggests that home BP level, along with other traditional risk factors, may be enough to stratify cardiovascular risk.

Optimal Schedule for Home Blood Pressure Measurement Based on Prognostic Data The Finn-Home Study

Current guidelines based on cross-sectional statistical parameters derived from reference populations make equivocal recommendations for the optimal schedule of home blood pressure (BP) measurement. The objective of this study was to determine a schedule for home BP measurements in relation to their predictive value for total cardiovascular risk. Home BP was measured twice every morning and evening for 1 week in an unselected nationwide population of 2081 subjects aged 45 to 74 years. The prognostic significance of BP for fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events was examined using adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models. A total of 162 cardiovascular events were recorded during a 6.8-year follow-up. The predictive value of home BP increased progressively with the number of measurements, showing the highest predictive value with the average of all measurements (systolic/diastolic hazard ratio per 1-mm Hg increase in BP: 1.021/1.034; systolic/ diastolic 95% CI: 1.012 to 1.030/1.018 to 1.049). However, most of this increase was achieved during the first 3 days of measurement (hazard ratio: 1.017/1.028; 95% CI: 1.009 to 1.026/1.013 to 1.045), and only minimal increase occurred after day 6. No additional benefit was achieved by discarding the values obtained during the first day of measurement. Morning and evening BPs were equally predictive of future cardiovascular events. Novel prognostic data from this study show that measurement of home BP twice in the morning and evening, preferably for a period of 7 days, or for at least 3 days, provides a thorough image of a patients BP level. This information should be used to prepare a unified international guideline for home BP measurement.

Variability in home-measured blood pressure and heart rate: associations with self-reported insomnia and sleep duration

Objective Both self-reported sleep disorders and higher variability in home blood pressure (BP) and home heart rate (HR) have been associated with increased cardiovascular mortality. The objective of our study was to assess the associations of the variability in home-measured BP and HR with self-reported insomnia and sleep duration. Methods We studied a representative sample of Finnish adult population with 1908 study participants aged 41–74 years. BP/HR measurements were performed on 7 consecutive days. The variability in home-measured BP/HR was defined as the standard deviation of morning − evening, day-by-day and first − second measurements. Self-reported insomnia and sleep duration questionnaires were used to classify participants with sleep disorders. Results Results from Finn-home study show that morning − evening, day-by-day (morning and evening) and first − second home BP variability variables were significantly higher in participants with persistent insomnia than in those without insomnia. Morning − evening, day-by-day, morning day-by-day and first − second measurements of home HR variability variables were significantly higher in participants with persistent insomnia than in those without insomnia. Systolic morning − evening, day-by-day and morning day-by-day variables of home BP variability were significantly higher in long sleepers and systolic morning day-by-day, diastolic day-by-day and diastolic first − second measurement of home BP variability variables were higher in short sleepers than in the reference group. Insomnia combined with short sleep duration further increases home BP/HR variability. Conclusion As self-reported sleep disorders are associated with greater variability in home BP/HR and both have cardiovascular prognostic value, we encourage physicians to evaluate these easily obtainable measurements in clinical practice to help identify patients at risk.

Factors affecting the variability of home-measured blood pressure and heart rate: the Finn-home study

Objective Information of the determinants affecting home blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) variability is very limited. The objective of the study was to assess the determinants of home BP and HR variability in an unselected European population. Methods We studied a sample of 1908 patients aged 41–74 years. Study participants underwent a clinical examination and determination of serum lipids and glucose. Home BP and HR measurements were performed twice in the morning and in the evening during 7 consecutive days (28 measurements). BP and HR variability was defined as the SD of morning minus evening, day-by-day and first minus second measurements. Results Old age, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and high home BP were independent determinants of greater morning minus evening home BP variability. Old age, excessive use of alcohol and high home BP were independent determinants of greater day-by-day home BP variability, and old age, female sex, cardiovascular disease and high home BP were independent determinants of greater first minus second home BP variability. On the contrary, young age, moderate use of alcohol and high home HR were independent determinants of both greater morning minus evening and day-by-day home HR variability. In addition, young age, female sex and high home HR were independent determinants of first minus second home HR variability. Conclusion As home BP variability and HR variability have prognostic significance, it is important for the physicians to understand underlying causes of home BP and HR variation. Physicians should focus alcohol, diabetes and cardiovascular disease prevention counseling on their high-risk patients.

Optimal schedule for home blood pressure monitoring based on a clinical approach

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the optimal schedule for home blood pressure (HBP) measurement based on a clinical approach. Methods Four hundred and sixty-four participants underwent HBP measurement for 7 days (duplicate measurements in the morning and in the evening), ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring, and measurement of target organ damage (echocardiography and microalbuminuria). To evaluate the optimal schedule for HBP measurement, correlations of HBP with ABP and HBP with indicators of target organ damage were calculated. Results HBP decreased slightly (day 1, 129.9/85.3 mmHg; day 7, 128.6/84.8 mmHg), whereas the association between HBP and ABP or target organ damage increased with the cumulative number of measurements. The highest correlations were obtained by using the mean of all 28 measurements, although no major increase occurred after day 4. There was no change in the correlations when the measurements performed during the first day were discarded. Morning and evening HBP correlated equally well with ABP and microalbuminuria. The mean of the first measurements on each measurement occasion was 2.3/1.2 mmHg higher (P < 0.001 for both) than the mean of the second measurements, but discarding the first measurements did not result in greater correlations. The results were similar in both hypertensive and normotensive populations. Conclusion Duplicate measurements on at least 4 days in the evening and in the morning are needed to reliably estimate an individuals BP level and the risk for target organ damage. Measurements performed during the first day should not be discarded, as suggested by the current European guidelines.