Cited by 37Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionSodium Intake and Health

Adding Home and/or Ambulatory Blood Pressure to Office Blood Pressure for Cardiovascular Risk Prediction

Mancia, Giuseppe, Facchetti, Rita, Seravalle, Gino, Cuspidi, Cesare, Corrao, Giovanni, Grassi, Guido·2021·Hypertension

Abstract

Home and 24-hour blood pressure (BP Home and BP 24h ) are believed to improve the prognostic value of office BP (BP Office ) alone, but the evidence has limitations such as that (1) these 3 BPs are characterized by multicollinearity and (2) the procedures adopted do not allow quantification of the prognostic advantage. One thousand eight hundred thirty-three individuals belonging to the PAMELA (Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni) were followed for 16 years. Prediction of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality was determined via the goodness of fit of individual data (Cox model), the area underlying the receiving operator curves and the net reclassification improvement of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk. Calculations were made for BP Office alone and after addition of BP Home , BP 24h , or both, limited to their residual portion which was found to be unexplained by, and thus independent on, BP Office . With all methods addition of residual out-of-office systolic or diastolic BP to BP Office significantly improved cardiovascular and all-cause mortality prediction. The improvement was more consistent when BP Home rather than BP 24h was added to BP Office and, compared with BP Office plus BP Home , no better prediction was found when addition was extended to BP 24h . With all additions, however, the improvement was quantitatively modest, which was the case also when data were separately analyzed in younger and older individuals or in dippers and nondippers. Thus, addition of out-of-office to BP Office improves prediction of cardiovascular risk, even when data analysis avoids previous limitations. The improvement appears to be limited, however, which raises the question of the advantage to recommend their extended use in clinical practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/hypertensionaha.120.16303

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mancia, G., Facchetti, R., Seravalle, G., Cuspidi, C., Corrao, G., & Grassi, G.
Affiliations
University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
Corresponding author
Mancia, Giuseppe
Venue
Hypertension
Published
2021-02
Volume
77
Issue
2
Pages
640-649
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
OpenAlex
W3118702223
Cited by
37
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1
FWCI
5.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
Keywords
home blood pressure, ambulatory blood pressure, office blood pressure, cardiovascular risk prediction, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, net reclassification improvement, out-of-office blood pressure, multicollinearity
MeSH terms
Heart Disease Risk Factors, Adult, Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Risk Assessment, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory

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