Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic Value of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Refractory Hypertension: A Prospective Study

Open access
Redon, Josep, Campos, Carlos, Narciso, Maria L., Rodicio, Jose L., Pascual, Jose M., Ruilope, Luis M.·1998·Hypertension

Abstract

Abstract —The objective of this study was to establish whether ambulatory blood pressure offers a better estimate of cardiovascular risk than does its clinical blood pressure counterpart in refractory hypertension. This prospective study assessed the incidence of cardiovascular events over time during an average follow-up of 49 months (range, 6 to 96). Patients were referred to specialized hypertension clinics (86 essential hypertension patients who had diastolic blood pressure >100 mm Hg during antihypertensive treatment that included three or more antihypertensive drugs, one being a diuretic). Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed at the time of entrance. End-organ damage was monitored yearly, and the incidence of cardiovascular events was recorded. Patients were divided into tertiles of average diastolic blood pressure during activity according to the ABPM, with the lowest tertile <88 mm Hg (LT, n=29), the middle tertile 88 to 97 mm Hg (MT, n=29), and the highest tertile >97 mm Hg (HT, n=28). While significant differences in systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressures were observed among groups, no differences were observed at either the beginning or at the time of the last evaluation for office blood pressure. During the last evaluation, a progression in the end-organ damage score was observed for the HT group but not for the two other groups. Twenty-one of the patients had a new cardiovascular event; the incidence of events was significantly lower for the LT group (2.2 per 100 patient-years) than it was for the MT group (9.5 per 100 patient-years) or for the HT group (13.6 per 100 patient-years). The probability of event-free survival was also significantly different when comparing the LT group with the other two groups (LT versus MT log-rank, P <.04; LT versus HT log-rank, P <.006). The HT group was an independent risk factor for the incidence of cardiovascular events (relative risk, 6.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.38 to 28.1, P <.02). Higher values of ambulatory blood pressure result in a worse prognosis in patients with refractory hypertension, supporting the recommendation that ABPM is useful in stratifying the cardiovascular risk in patients with refractory hypertension.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.hyp.31.2.712

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 420

Metadata

Authors
Redon, J., Campos, C., Narciso, M. L., Rodicio, J. L., Pascual, J. M., & Ruilope, L. M.
Venue
Hypertension
Published
1998-02
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
712-718
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
OpenAlex
W2002868671
Cited by
420
References
2
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognostic Value of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Refractory Hypertension: A Prospective Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.hyp.31.2.712
The paper
Redon, J., Campos, C., Narciso, M. L., Rodicio, J. L., Pascual, J. M., & Ruilope, L. M. (1998). Prognostic Value of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Refractory Hypertension: A Prospective Study. Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.hyp.31.2.712

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.