Adding Home and/or Ambulatory Blood Pressure to Office Blood Pressure for Cardiovascular Risk Prediction
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A systematic review found that direct comparisons of hazard ratios did not reveal consistent differences between home blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure for outcome prediction.
“Direct comparisons of hazard ratios did not reveal consistent differences between the two methods”
In the few studies where mutual adjustment was performed, only one indicated clear superiority of ambulatory blood pressure for outcome prediction.
“and in the few studies where mutual adjustment was performed, only one indicated clear superiority of ABP in this regard [42].”
Cites
Leening, M. J. G., Vedder, M. M., Witteman, J. C. M., Pencina, M. J., & Steyerberg, E. W. (2014) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m13-1522 · Cited by 594 · see citing works
Niiranen, T. J., Hänninen, M.-R., Johansson, J., Reunanen, A., & Jula, A. M. (2010) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.109.149336 · Cited by 390 · see citing works
Nocturnal blood pressure measured by home devices: evidence and perspective for clinical application
Asayama, K., Fujiwara, T., Hoshide, S., Ohkubo, T., Kario, K., Stergiou, G. S., Parati, G., White, W. B., Weber, M. A., & Imai, Y. (2019) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000001987 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mancia, G., Kreutz, R., Brunström, M., Burnier, M., Grassi, G., Januszewicz, A., Muiesan, M. L., Tsioufis, K., Agabiti-Rosei, E., Algharably, E. A. E., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000003480 · Cited by 3,473 · see citing works
Self-citationBarbato, E., Azizi, M., Schmieder, R. E., Lauder, L., Böhm, M., Brouwers, S., Bruno, R. M., Dudek, D., Kahan, T., Kandzari, D. E., et al. (2023) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad054 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Parati, G., Stergiou, G. S., Bilo, G., Kollias, A., Pengo, M., Ochoa, J. E., Agarwal, R., Asayama, K., Asmar, R., Burnier, M., et al. (2021) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002922 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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