Cited by 90Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Relationship between Home Blood Pressure and Longitudinal Changes in Target Organ Damage in Treated Hypertensive Patients

Open access
TSUNODA, Sei, KAWANO, Yuhei, HORIO, Takeshi, OKUDA, Naoki, TAKISHITA, Shuichi·2002·Hypertension Research

Abstract

Cross-sectional studies have shown that home blood pressure (BP) correlates with hypertensive target organ damage better than clinic BP. However, there have been few longitudinal studies regarding the predictive value of home BP on the changes in organ damage in treated hypertensive patients. Clinic and home BP over a 12-month period, antihypertensive medication use, echocardiographic and electrocardiographic results, and serum creatinine and urinary protein levels were examined in 209 treated hypertensive patients in 1993. These patients were prospectively followed for 5 years. The patients were divided into 4 subgroups according to hypertension control as follows: good control (<140/90 mmHg for clinic BP, <135/85 mmHg for home BP), improved, worsened, and poor control. The average clinic BP was 147.0+/-14.9/87.0+/-7.6 mmHg (mean+/-SD) in 1993 and 146.0+/-13.7/84.1+/-7.5 mmHg in 1998. The average home BP was 136.8+/-10.4/84.3+/-7.6 mmHg in 1993 and 136.1+/-9.7/81.2+/-7.7 mmHg in 1998. The left ventricular mass index (LVMI) positively correlated with both home systolic BP and clinic systolic BP in 1998 but not in 1993. The correlation tended to be closer for home BP than for clinic BP. LVMI did not change in patients with good or improved home systolic BP, while it increased in those with poor or worsened home systolic BP. The relationship between changes in LVMI and clinic BP was not significant. In conclusion, Home BP was more effective than clinic BP as a predictor of changes in left ventricular hypertrophy in treated hypertensive patients. Home BP should be controlled to below 135/85 mmHg to prevent cardiac hypertrophy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1291/hypres.25.167

Cites

1 of 1 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
TSUNODA, S., KAWANO, Y., HORIO, T., OKUDA, N., & TAKISHITA, S.
Venue
Hypertension Research
Published
2002
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
167-173
ISSN
0916-9636 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1974315095
Cited by
90
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hypertension Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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 › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
home blood pressure, office blood pressure, hypertension, target organ damage, left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular mass index, antihypertensive therapy, blood pressure control, longitudinal change, cardiovascular risk prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Creatinine, Echocardiography, Electrocardiography, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Prospective Studies, Proteinuria, Self Care

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