Takeshi Fujiwara, Constantinos Koshiaris, Claire L Schwartz, James P Sheppard, Naoko Tomitani, Satoshi Hoshide, Kazuomi Kario, Richard J McManus
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Differences in ambulatory versus home blood pressure levels by ethnicity: data from the United Kingdom and Japan.
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.
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.