Differences in ambulatory versus home blood pressure levels by ethnicity: data from the United Kingdom and Japan.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Takeshi Fujiwara, Constantinos Koshiaris, Claire L Schwartz, James P Sheppard, Naoko Tomitani, Satoshi Hoshide, Kazuomi Kario, Richard J McManus
{"title":"Differences in ambulatory versus home blood pressure levels by ethnicity: data from the United Kingdom and Japan.","authors":"Takeshi Fujiwara, Constantinos Koshiaris, Claire L Schwartz, James P Sheppard, Naoko Tomitani, Satoshi Hoshide, Kazuomi Kario, Richard J McManus","doi":"10.1038/s41371-024-00962-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study tested the hypothesis that differences in ethnicity impact the level of agreement between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and home BP (HBP) levels. A retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the UK and Japan was performed. Participants underwent office BP, daytime ABP, and HBP measurements. The ABP-HBP difference was compared between ethnic groups by multiple linear regression analysis. Diagnostic disagreement was defined as a disparity between the hypertension diagnoses obtained using ABP and HBP, since both measures share common thresholds of 135/85 mmHg for hypertension. Definite diagnostic disagreement was assigned where such a difference exceeded ±5 mmHg for either systolic BP (SBP) or diastolic BP (DBP). A total of 1 408 participants (age 62.1 ± 11.1 years, 48.6% males, 78.9% known hypertensive, White British 18.9%, South Asian 11.2%, African Caribbean 12.0%, Japanese 58.0%) were eligible. More Japanese participants showed higher ABP than HBP compared to White British: SBP + 3.09 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) + 1.14, +5.04 mmHg; DBP + 5.67 mmHg, 95%CI + 4.51, +6.84 mmHg. More Japanese participants than African Caribbean participants exhibited diagnostic disagreement in SBP (33.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.006). Furthermore, Japanese participants had a higher percentage of definite diagnostic disagreement in SBP compared to White British (9.3% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.040) and African Caribbean participants (9.3% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.018). In conclusion, Japanese participants showed greater disparity between ABP and HBP compared to White British participants. Complementary use of ABP and HBP monitoring may be more beneficial for assessing cardiovascular disease risk in Japanese participants compared to other ethnic groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":16070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Hypertension","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41371-024-00962-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study tested the hypothesis that differences in ethnicity impact the level of agreement between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and home BP (HBP) levels. A retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data from the UK and Japan was performed. Participants underwent office BP, daytime ABP, and HBP measurements. The ABP-HBP difference was compared between ethnic groups by multiple linear regression analysis. Diagnostic disagreement was defined as a disparity between the hypertension diagnoses obtained using ABP and HBP, since both measures share common thresholds of 135/85 mmHg for hypertension. Definite diagnostic disagreement was assigned where such a difference exceeded ±5 mmHg for either systolic BP (SBP) or diastolic BP (DBP). A total of 1 408 participants (age 62.1 ± 11.1 years, 48.6% males, 78.9% known hypertensive, White British 18.9%, South Asian 11.2%, African Caribbean 12.0%, Japanese 58.0%) were eligible. More Japanese participants showed higher ABP than HBP compared to White British: SBP + 3.09 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) + 1.14, +5.04 mmHg; DBP + 5.67 mmHg, 95%CI + 4.51, +6.84 mmHg. More Japanese participants than African Caribbean participants exhibited diagnostic disagreement in SBP (33.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.006). Furthermore, Japanese participants had a higher percentage of definite diagnostic disagreement in SBP compared to White British (9.3% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.040) and African Caribbean participants (9.3% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.018). In conclusion, Japanese participants showed greater disparity between ABP and HBP compared to White British participants. Complementary use of ABP and HBP monitoring may be more beneficial for assessing cardiovascular disease risk in Japanese participants compared to other ethnic groups.

按种族划分的门诊血压与居家血压的差异:来自英国和日本的数据。
本研究对种族差异会影响门诊血压 (ABP) 和居家血压 (HBP) 水平之间一致性的假设进行了检验。研究对英国和日本的横断面数据进行了回顾性分析。参与者接受了诊室血压、日间 ABP 和 HBP 测量。通过多元线性回归分析比较了不同种族群体之间 ABP-HBP 的差异。诊断分歧被定义为使用 ABP 和 HBP 得出的高血压诊断结果之间的差异,因为这两种测量方法对高血压的共同阈值都是 135/85 mmHg。如果收缩压(SBP)或舒张压(DBP)的差异超过±5 mmHg,则诊断结果存在明显差异。共有 1 408 名参与者符合条件(年龄为 62.1 ± 11.1 岁,48.6% 为男性,78.9% 已知患有高血压,英国白人占 18.9%,南亚人占 11.2%,加勒比海非洲人占 12.0%,日本人占 58.0%)。与英国白人相比,更多日本参与者的 ABP 高于 HBP:SBP+3.09毫米汞柱,95%置信区间(CI)+1.14,+5.04毫米汞柱;DBP+5.67毫米汞柱,95%置信区间(CI)+4.51,+6.84毫米汞柱。在 SBP 诊断上出现分歧的日本参与者多于非裔加勒比海参与者(33.2% 对 20.7%,P = 0.006)。此外,与英裔白人(9.3% 对 4.5%,p = 0.040)和加勒比海非洲裔参与者(9.3% 对 3.0%,p = 0.018)相比,日裔参与者在 SBP 方面有明确诊断分歧的比例更高。总之,与英国白人参试者相比,日本参试者的 ABP 和 HBP 差异更大。与其他种族群体相比,辅助使用 ABP 和 HBP 监测可能更有利于评估日本参与者的心血管疾病风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Human Hypertension
Journal of Human Hypertension 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
126
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Human Hypertension is published monthly and is of interest to health care professionals who deal with hypertension (specialists, internists, primary care physicians) and public health workers. We believe that our patients benefit from robust scientific data that are based on well conducted clinical trials. We also believe that basic sciences are the foundations on which we build our knowledge of clinical conditions and their management. Towards this end, although we are primarily a clinical based journal, we also welcome suitable basic sciences studies that promote our understanding of human hypertension. The journal aims to perform the dual role of increasing knowledge in the field of high blood pressure as well as improving the standard of care of patients. The editors will consider for publication all suitable papers dealing directly or indirectly with clinical aspects of hypertension, including but not limited to epidemiology, pathophysiology, therapeutics and basic sciences involving human subjects or tissues. We also consider papers from all specialties such as ophthalmology, cardiology, nephrology, obstetrics and stroke medicine that deal with the various aspects of hypertension and its complications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信