1Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-cho, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8574, Japan
2Department of Planning for Drug Development and Clinical Evaluation, Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-cho, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8574, Japan
3Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Tohoku University Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-cho, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8574, Japan
4Comprehensive Research and Education Center for Planning of Drug Development and Clinical Evaluation, Tohoku University 21st Century COE Program, Sendai, Japan
5Ohasama Hospital, Iwate, Japan
Received 4 December 2004; revised 16 March 2005; accepted 22 April 2005; online publish-ahead-of-print 25 May 2005.
* Corresponding author. Tel: +81 22 717 7770; fax: +81 22 717 7776. E-mail address: rinsyo{at}bureau.tohoku.ac.jp
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods and results HBP and CBP were measured in 1702 subjects (40 years) who had no history of stroke and who were followed for an average of 11 years. The subjects were assigned to one of five groups with differential risk stratification according to the 2003 ESHESC criteria: average risk, low added risk, moderate added risk, high added risk, and very high added risk. Even in the low risk group a significantly high risk for stroke was observed, and there was a linear step up of stroke risk based on HBP, as well as on CBP. On the basis of HBP classification, a higher stroke incidence was observed in the high and very high groups compared with CBP classification.
Conclusion The risk stratification system proposed in the 2003 ESHESC guidelines is valid for the prediction of stroke in this Japanese study population, and has a stronger predictive power when based on HBP than on CBP. The results indicate the usefulness of HBP for the prediction of stroke risk in individuals.
Key Words: Blood pressure Home measurement Screening measurement Stroke ESH-ESC guidelines Risk stratification
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
High reproducibility and reliability of self-measurement of BP at home (HBP) have been reported. HBP monitoring is well accepted by patients1,2 and encourages active participation in the management of personal health conditions. Adjustment of antihypertensive medication based on HBP instead of casual-screening BP (CBP) could lead to lower costs.3 Moreover, our previous study showed the strong predictive power of HBP measurement for CVD mortality,4 as HBP avoids observer and regression dilution biases and eliminates the white-coat effect.2
The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-7)5 emphasized simplified risk stratification. The 2003 European Society of HypertensionEuropean Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension (2003 ESHESC) followed the concepts of the 1999 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) guidelines,6 stating that comprehensive risk stratification is the essential strategy for the management of hypertension. The 2003 ESHESC guidelines emphasized the importance of individualized medications.
Although the 2003 ESHESC guidelines would possibly be applicable even for populations outside Europe,7 the usefulness of the guidelines in non-European countries has not yet been established. Also, the advantages of HBP measurements when compared with CBP have not been established, especially in terms of predicting first onset of stroke.
One aim of the present study was to examine whether the 2003 ESHESC classification was applicable to predict the risk of first stroke incidence, particularly because there is a high incidence of stroke observed among the Japanese.8 Another aim was to compare the predictive power of HBP and CBP for stroke risk with the stratification system of the 2003 ESHESC guidelines. Finally, we compared the prediction of first stroke based on the simplified risk stratification suggested by JNC-79 with prediction based on the comprehensive risk stratification from the 2003 ESHESC guidelines.
![]() |
Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of this region and the details of the selection procedure of study populations have been previously described.4,1012 Briefly, HBP measured three times or more and CBP measurements were obtained from 1789 representative individuals of the 1989 eligible individuals aged 40 years or over. As 87 individuals had a previous history of stroke, they were excluded from the present analysis in order to examine the relationship between the first onset of stroke and the risk stratification system of the 2003 ESHESC guidelines. Therefore, the study population consisted of 1702 individuals. The mean (SD) age was 60.6 (10.7) years. The ratio of men to women was 39:61, and the reasons for this disproportionate ratio were previously described.12
Blood pressure measurements
Physicians and well-trained public health nurses conducted health education classes to inform the subjects on how to measure and record HBP. After their ability to measure HBP was verified, subjects were asked to measure their own HBPs in the sitting position every morning within 1 h after awaking and after 2 min of rest and to record the measurements for 4 weeks. All subjects were instructed to position their cuff-covered arms at heart level during HBP measurements. If individuals were taking antihypertensive medications, HBP was measured before taking medications. These procedures were described in detail in our previous report,10 and were developed according to the guidelines for self-monitoring of HBP.2 HBP was measured using the HEM 401C (Omron Healthcare Co. Ltd, Kyoto, Japan), a semi-automatic device based on the cuff-oscillometric principle, which generates a digital display of both systolic and diastolic BP.13
Annual health check-ups are available to all Japanese citizens aged 40 or over. Subjects are seated at rest for at least 2 min, then CBP is consecutively measured two times by nurses or technicians. A semi-automatic BP measuring device (USM700F; Ueda Electronic Work Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) based on the microphone method was used.
The average arm circumference for subjects was typically <34 cm, so we used a standard arm cuff for both HBP and CBP measurements. The devices for measurement of CBP and HBP were calibrated before the start of the study.13 All devices met the criteria set by the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.14
Classification of groups
On the basis of the 2003 ESHESC risk stratification system, the subjects were first classified into six BP categories as shown in Table 1. HBP-based and CBP-based criteria were defined as follows: optimal (HBP <115/75 mmHg, CBP <120/80 mmHg); normal (HBP 115/75124/79 mmHg, CBP 120/80129/84 mmHg); high normal (HBP 125/80134/84 mmHg, CBP 130/85139/89 mmHg); Grade 1 (mild hypertension: HBP 135/85149/94 mmHg, CBP 140/90159/99 mmHg); Grade 2 (moderate hypertension: HBP 150/95164/104 mmHg, CBP 160/100179/109 mmHg); Grade 3 (severe hypertension: HBP 165/105, CBP
180/110 mmHg). When a systolic or diastolic BP was in a different category, the subject was assigned to the higher category. The CBP classification was equal to the 2003 ESHESC criteria. In the present analysis, hypertension was defined as HBP
135/85 mmHg, according to the JNC-VI, JNC-7, and 2003 ESHESC guidelines; HBP of 135/85 mmHg is equivalent to CBP of 140/90 mmHg. To define other BP levels based on HBP, we postulated that 75, 80, 95, and 105 mmHg of diastolic HBP were equivalent to 80, 85, 100, and 110 mmHg of diastolic CBP, respectively. Then systolic BP levels for HBP were introduced from the rate of subjects from each level of CBP classification. In the present analysis, we did not include the concept of pure systolic hypertension.
|
In addition to these criteria, we also used the classification system based on the JNC-7 guidelines as previously reported.9 Briefly, the subjects were classified into four groups based on HBP or CBP according to the JNC-7 criteria:5 Group 1 (normotension: HBP <115/75 mmHg, CBP <120/80 mmHg); Group 2 (prehypertension: HBP 115/75134/84 mmHg, CBP 120/80139/89 mmHg); Group 3 (Stage 1 hypertension: HBP 135/85149/94 mmHg, CBP 140/90159/99 mmHg); Group 4 (Stage 2 hypertension: HBP 150/95 mmHg, CBP
160/100 mmHg). After classification of BP values, Groups 24 were divided into two subgroupsa and bindicating those without and those with CVD risks (diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia, habitual smoking, or history of CVD), respectively. All subjects were assigned to one of seven categories (Groups 1, 2a, 3a ... 4b) based on the JNC-7 classification.
Follow-up and risk ascertainment
We accumulated follow-up data until 31 December 2001. The subjects' residence status in Ohasama was confirmed by registration cards. These cards are accurate and reliable because they are used for pensions and social security benefits in Japan. Twenty-seven subjects (1.8%) had moved away and were eliminated from follow-up, and 209 deaths (14.0%) were identified from the residents' registration cards.
The incidence and past history of stroke were investigated through the Stroke Registration System of Iwate Prefecture, death certificates, receipt of National Health Insurance, and questionnaires sent to each household at the time of HBP measurement. The information was then confirmed by checking the medical records of Ohasama hospital where >90% of the subjects had their regular check-ups. We used computed tomography (CT) scans and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reports to determine the clinical definition of stroke. For 3% of stroke cases, death certificates were the only source of information. The analysis included only the first event in those who had multiple non-fatal events. The diagnostic criteria of stroke and their subtypes were based on the system for the Classification of Cerebrovascular Disease III by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.15
Other information for individuals such as height, weight, habitual smoking, use of antihypertensive medication at baseline, history of heart disease, hypercholesterolaemia, or diabetes mellitus was obtained from questionnaires sent to each household at the time of HBP measurements, from records of annual health check-ups, and from medical records at Ohasama Hospital. Subjects using lipid-lowering drugs or those with serum cholesterol levels of 5.68 mmol/L (220 mg/dL) were considered to have hypercholesterolaemia. Subjects with a fasting glucose level of
7.77 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) or non-fasting glucose level of
11.11 mmol/L (200 mg/dL), or those using insulin or oral antihyperglycaemic drugs were defined as having diabetes mellitus. A past history of CVD included a history of myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, atrial fibrillation, or cardiac failure.
Data analysis
The HBP values were the average of all home measurements per subject. CBP of each subject was the average of two consecutive CBP readings taken at the beginning of the study.
The risk of the first stroke was examined using the Cox proportional hazards model. The dependent variable was the number of days from the initial HBP measurement to the date of stroke or censoring. Stroke-free survivors as of December 31, 2001 were censored. The independent variables were the groups of the risk stratification system using the 2003 ESHESC guidelines in which factors of age and sex were included. In further analysis, the risk in relation to the JNC-7 guideline-based classification was examined by the Cox model adjusted for age and sex. When we analysed the incidence of stroke, we censored cases of death from causes other than fatal stroke events.
The estimated relative hazard (RH) and the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of variables were derived from the coefficient and standard error determined by the Cox proportional hazards model. The RH is expressed relative to Group 1 (average risk; RH=1). Separate models were used for HBP classification and CBP classification after verification of the assumption of proportionality for the Cox proportional hazards models.16 The predictive values of HBP classification and CBP classification were evaluated using the comparison of corresponding regression coefficients and log likelihoods in the Cox model. We also assessed the interaction between antihypertensive medication and the five risk groups using the Cox model with stroke as the endpoint. All data are shown as mean (SD) unless otherwise stated. A P-value <0.05 (two-sided test) was accepted as indicative of statistical significance. The SAS system (Version 8.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for all statistical calculations.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The characteristics of the subjects are shown in Table 2. Of the 1702 study subjects, 370 (22%) were classified as current or ex-smokers; 507 (30%) were treated with antihypertensive medication at baseline; 16 (1%) had a history of heart disease; 218 (13%) had diabetes mellitus, and 207 (12%) had hypercholesterolaemia. The mean number of HBP measurements from each individual was 23.0 (7.1). The mean systolic and diastolic HBP of all subjects were 125.2 (15.0) and 74.9 (10.1) mmHg, respectively.
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In comparison with the 2003 ESHESC guidelines, the JNC-7 classification adopts a simplified risk stratification that consists of four grades based on CBP.5 Individuals who have hypertension and at least one risk factor are considered to be candidates for antihypertensive drugs and intensive treatment. Thus their cardiovascular risks are not thoroughly considered in JNC-7. We reported in the previous study that the JNC-7 classification is applicable for the general Japanese population.9 However, when based on the risk stratification system proposed in the 2003 ESHESC guidelines, the measurements of HBP as well as CBP would predict the first stroke incidence more accurately than those based on the simplified risk stratification in JNC-7 as shown in the current study (refer to Asayama et al.9). It is a reasonable assumption that a comprehensive risk stratification system could be used for individualized BP management. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize that in this study, the stroke risk in the moderate risk group was significantly higher than that in the low risk group when based on HBP, whereas no significant differences were observed between two risk groups when based on CBP; these findings support the assertion that BP management should be based on HBP information.
The 2003 ESHESC guidelines set the reference value of hypertension using HBP at 135/85 mmHg. In the present study, hypertension was also defined as HBP at 135/85 mmHg, then HBP was classified by the percentage distribution of subjects according to the corresponding ratio of CBP. A stepwise increase of stroke risk in the stratification system was observed when based on HBP as well as CBP in the current study. It should be noted that high-normal individuals and prehypertension have relatively high CVD risk when compared with individuals with optimal17 or normal BP.18 Hypothetically speaking, the lower the BP, the better the stroke prevention.19
Approximately one-quarter of our subjects with high-normal BP (23.5% based on HBP and 22.5% based on CBP) were classified as average risk according to the 2003 ESHESC guidelines. There were 89 high-normal BP subjects among 584 (HBP-based) and 89 high-normal subjects among the 529 (CBP-based) average risk subjects. A major difference between the 2003 ESHESC and JNC-7 guidelines is that the latter advises pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in all prehypertensives (high-normal or normal BP), whereas the former suggests intervention only for those who are in the low added risk but not in the average risk' category.20 According to our results, it was obvious that individuals in the low risk group needed treatment even though their BP was within normal limits, whereas treatment for the average risk individuals remains a matter for debate.
Although HBP measurement is now acknowledged worldwide in the major guidelines as a useful tool for clinical practice, lack of information on the prognostic significance has limited its use in clinical decision-making.5,6,2123 In the present study, we demonstrated that HBP measurements provide more useful prognostic information on cerebrovascular disease than CBP measurements. Information on BP in relation to the time of day, as well as an increased number of measurements, improves the quality of data. Furthermore, HBP is usually measured under more controlled conditions than CBP. The average of multiple values of HBP obtained under controlled conditions provides individual BP information without biases such as white-coat effect, regression dilution biases, and time effect.2
In conclusion, the risk stratification system proposed in the 2003 ESHESC guidelines was valid for the prediction of stroke incidence in populations outside Europe, and we found that the stratification based on HBP measurements is a valuable tool for predicting the incidence of stroke. Guidelines based on individualized medications, such as the 2003 ESHESC guidelines, are more useful and applicable than those based on simple BP-oriented medications, such as the JNC-7. HBP measurement is a useful tool to improve awareness of hypertension and to predict future incidence of cerebrovascular disease.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|