Quantifying Blood Pressure Visit-to-Visit Variability in the Real-World Setting: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Abstract

Background: Visit-to-visit variability (VVV) in blood pressure values has been reported in clinical studies. However, little is known about VVV in clinical practice and whether it is associated with patient characteristics in real-world setting.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to quantify VVV in systolic blood pressure (SBP) values in a real-world setting. We included adults (age ≥18 years) with at least 2 outpatient visits between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2018 from Yale New Haven Health System. Patient-level measures of VVV included SD and coefficient of variation of a given patient's SBP across visits. We calculated patient-level VVV overall and by patient subgroups. We further developed a multilevel regression model to assess the extent to which VVV in SBP was explained by patient characteristics.

Results: The study population included 537 218 adults, with a total of 7 721 864 SBP measurements. The mean age was 53.4 (SD 19.0) years, 60.4% were women, 69.4% were non-Hispanic White, and 18.1% were on antihypertensive medications. Patients had a mean body mass index of 28.4 (5.9) kg/m² and 22.6%, 8.0%, 9.7%, and 5.6% had a history of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and coronary artery disease, respectively. The mean number of visits per patient was 13.3, over an average period of 2.4 years. The mean (SD) intraindividual SD and coefficient of variation of SBP across visits were 10.6 (5.1) mm Hg and 0.08 (0.04). These measures of blood pressure variation were consistent across patient subgroups defined by demographic characteristics and medical history. In the multivariable linear regression model, only 4% of the variance in absolute standardized difference was attributable to patient characteristics.

Conclusions: The VVV in real-world practice poses challenges for management of patients with hypertension based on blood pressure readings in outpatient settings and suggest the need to go beyond episodic clinic evaluation.