Search results
Found 20054 matches for
We lead multidisciplinary applied research and training to rethink the way health care is delivered in general practice and across the community.
ARM BASED ON LEG BLOOD PRESSURES (ABLE-BP): CAN SYSTOLIC LEG BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS PREDICT BRACHIAL BLOOD PRESSURE? AN INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANT DATA META-ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is diagnosed and managed using brachial blood pressures; accurate measurement can be impeded by several temporary or permanent factors, including fractures, presence of vascular access devices, limb deformities and altered muscle tone after stroke. Leg (ankle) blood pressure measurement is a practical alternative, but limited data exist to guide clinicians' interpretation of leg blood pressure values for hypertension diagnosis and treatment. DESIGN AND METHOD: Individual participant data meta-analyses were undertaken, using data from 14 studies within the international inter-arm blood pressure difference individual participant data (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration, to 1) determine the relationship between arm and leg systolic blood pressure, 2) develop and validate a multivariable model predicting arm from leg systolic blood pressure, and 3) investigate the prognostic association between leg systolic blood pressure and cardiovascular disease and mortality. RESULTS: Arm and leg systolic blood pressure data existed for 33,710 individuals (mean age: 58 years, mean arm systolic/diastolic blood pressure at baseline: 138/80 mmHg, 45% female). Mean leg systolic blood pressure was 12.0 (95% CI, 8.8 to 15.2) mmHg higher than arm systolic blood pressure. The multivariable model derived to predict highest arm from highest leg systolic blood pressure demonstrated excellent performance (area under receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity and specificity remained above 0.89, 0.80 and 0.81, respectively, across blood pressure thresholds from 160 to 130 mmHg). Lowest leg systolic blood pressure was a predictor of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events over a 10-year period. Cardiovascular risk scores were similar for observed arm systolic blood pressure and the highest arm systolic blood pressure predicted from lowest leg systolic blood pressure [Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Score: 16.73% (12.65) vs 17.17% (12.61), Framingham Score: 19.33% (15.05) vs 19.91% (15.06)]. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a robust evidence-based method for describing the arm-leg systolic blood pressure relationship and estimating individual brachial systolic blood pressure and cardiovascular risk from leg blood pressure measurements using individual participant data. A freely available and easy-to-use web-based calculator has been created to support patients and clinicians in estimating equivalent arm blood pressure when only leg blood pressure measurements and patient characteristics are available.
Predictors and determinants of albuminuria in people with prediabetes and diabetes based on smoking status: A cross-sectional study using the UK Biobank data
Background: Smoking is attributed to both micro- and macrovascular complications at any stage of metabolic deregulation including prediabetes. Current global diabetes prevention programmes appear to be glucocentric, and do not fully acknowledge the ramifications of cardiorenal risk factors in smokers and ex-smokers. A more holistic approach is needed to prevent vascular complications in people with prediabetes and diabetes before and after quitting. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out on participants who agreed to take part in the UK Biobank dataset at the time of their first attendances between March 01, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Those who had their urinary albumin concentration (UAC) data available were included, and those who did not have this data, were excluded. A logistic regression model was fitted to explore the relationship between cardiorenal risk factors and albuminuria in people with prediabetes and diabetes, based on smoking status. Findings: A total of 502,490 participants were included in the UK Biobank dataset. Of them, 30.4% (n=152,896) had their UAC level recorded. Compared with non-smokers, the odds of albuminuria in smokers with prediabetes and diabetes were 1.21 (95% CI 1.05 – 1.39, p=0.009), and 1.26 (95% CI 1.10 – 1.44, p=0.001), respectively. The odds declined after quitting in both groups, but it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Each unit increase in HbA1c was associated with equivalent increased odds of albuminuria in current and ex-smokers, OR 1.035 (95% CI 1.030 – 1.039, p<0.001), and 1.026 (95% CI 1.023 – 1.028, p <0.001), respectively. Compared to females, male ex-smokers were at 15% increased odds of albuminuria. In ex-smokers, each unit increase in waist circumference was associated with 1% increased risk of albuminuria. Compared with the least deprived quintiles, the odds of albuminuria in the most deprived quintiles, in current and ex-smokers were identical, OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.04–1.324, p=0.010), and 1.19 (95% CI 1.11 – 1.27, p<0.001), respectively. Interpretation: Male smokers are at a higher risk of albuminuria after smoking cessation. Monitoring waist circumference in quitters may identify those who are at a higher risk of albuminuria. Combining smoking cessation intervention in smokers with prediabetes in the current diabetes prevention programmes may offset post-cessation weight gain and reduce the risk of albuminuria. Funding: University of Sheffield.
The health impacts of preventive cardiovascular medication reduction on older populations: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: Polypharmacy is inevitable and appropriate for many conditions, but in some cases, it can be problematic resulting in an increased risk of harm and reduced quality of life. There has been an increasing interest to reduce cardioprotective medications in older adults to potentially reduce the risk of harm due to treatment; however, there is no evidence on safety and efficacy to support this practice currently. This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review on the safety and efficacy of reducing cardioprotective medication in older populations. Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched from their inception onwards for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies on interventions (prospective, retrospective cohort, case-control) conducted in older adults (75 years or older) examining reduction of cardioprotective medications will be included. The primary outcome of this study will be all-cause hospitalisation. Secondary outcome variables of interest are all-cause hospitalisation, mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events, falls, fractures, cognitive functioning, bleeding events, renal functioning, medication burden, drug reinstatement, time-in-hospital, and frailty status. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach; the risk of bias will be assessed by the RoB-II tool for randomised controlled studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Where sufficient data are available, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis by combining the outcomes of the included studies. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression are planned to assess the potential harms and risks of different drug classes and the impacts in different patient populations (e.g. sex, cognitive status, renal status, and age). Discussion: The study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles identified using our search strategy on the safety and efficacy of cardioprotective medication reduction in the older population. The findings will be crucial to inform clinicians on potential health outcomes of reducing cardiovascular medication in the elderly. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020208223
Impact of changes to national guidelines on hypertension-related workload: an interrupted time series analysis in English primary care.
BACKGROUND: In 2011, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommended the routine use of out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring for the diagnosis of hypertension. These changes were predicted to reduce unnecessary treatment costs and workload associated with misdiagnosis. AIM: To assess the impact of guideline change on rates of hypertension-related consultation in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective open cohort study in adults registered with English general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2017. METHOD: The primary outcome was the rate of face-to-face, telephone, and home visit consultations related to hypertension with a GP or nurse. Age- and sex-standardised rates were analysed using interrupted time-series analysis. RESULTS: In 3 937 191 adults (median follow-up 4.2 years) there were 12 253 836 hypertension-related consultations. The rate of hypertension-related consultation was 71.0 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 67.8 to 74.2) in April 2006, which remained flat before 2011. The introduction of the NICE hypertension guideline in 2011 was associated with a change in yearly trend (change in trend -3.60 per 100 person-years, 95% CI = -5.12 to -2.09). The rate of consultation subsequently decreased to 59.2 per 100 person-years (95% CI = 56.5 to 61.8) in March 2017. These changes occurred around the time of diagnosis, and persisted when accounting for wider trends in all consultations. CONCLUSION: Hypertension-related workload has declined in the last decade, in association with guideline changes. This is due to changes in workload at the time of diagnosis, rather than reductions in misdiagnosis.
Hypocapnia Alone Fails to Provoke Important Electrocardiogram Changes in Coronary Artery Diseased Patients
Background: There is still an urgent clinical need to develop non-invasive diagnostic tests for early ischemic heart disease because, once angina occurs, it is too late. Hypocapnia has long been known to cause coronary artery vasoconstriction. Some new cardiology tests are accompanied by the claim that they must have potential diagnostic value if hypocapnia enhances their cardiac effects in healthy subjects. But no previous study has tested whether hypocapnia produces bigger cardiac effects in patients with angina than in healthy subjects. Methods: Severe hypocapnia (a PetCO2 level of 20 mmHg) lasting >15 min was mechanically induced by facemask, while conscious and unmedicated, in 18 healthy subjects and in 10 patients with angina and angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease, awaiting by-pass surgery. Each participant was their own control in normocapnia (where CO2 was added to the inspirate) and the order of normocapnia and hypocapnia was randomized. Twelve lead electrocardiograms (ECG) were recorded and automated measurements were made on all ECG waveforms averaged over >120 beats. 2D echocardiography was also performed on healthy subjects. Results: In the 18 healthy subjects, we confirm that severe hypocapnia (a mean PetCO2 of 20 ± 0 mmHg, P < 0.0001) consistently increased the mean T wave amplitude in leads V1–V3, but by only 31% (P < 0.01), 15% (P < 0.001) and 11% (P < 0.05), respectively. Hypocapnia produced no other significant effects (p > 0.05) on their electro- or echocardiogram. All 10 angina patients tolerated the mechanical hyperventilation well, with minimal discomfort. Hypocpania caused a similar increase in V1 (by 39%, P < 0.05 vs. baseline, but P > 0.05 vs. healthy controls) and did not induce angina. Its effects were no greater in patients who did not take β-blockers, or did not take organic nitrates, or had the worst Canadian Cardiovascular Society scores. Conclusion: Non-invasive mechanical hyperventilation while awake and unmedicated is safe and acceptable, even to patients with angina. Using it to produce severe and prolonged hypocapnia alone does produce significant ECG changes in angina patients. But its potential diagnostic value for identifying patients with coronary stenosis requires further evaluation.
Development and external validation of a risk prediction model for falls in patients with an indication for antihypertensive treatment: retrospective cohort study
Objective: To develop and externally validate the STRAtifying Treatments In the multi-morbid Frail elderlY (STRATIFY)-Falls clinical prediction model to identify the risk of hospital admission or death from a fall in patients with an indication for antihypertensive treatment. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Primary care data from electronic health records contained within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Participants: Patients aged 40 years or older with at least one blood pressure measurement between 130 mm Hg and 179 mm Hg. Main outcome measure: First serious fall, defined as hospital admission or death with a primary diagnosis of a fall within 10 years of the index date (12 months after cohort entry). Model development was conducted using a Fine-Gray approach in data from CPRD GOLD, accounting for the competing risk of death from other causes, with subsequent recalibration at one, five, and 10 years using pseudo values. External validation was conducted using data from CPRD Aurum, with performance assessed through calibration curves and the observed to expected ratio, C statistic, and D statistic, pooled across general practices, and clinical utility using decision curve analysis at thresholds around 10%. Results: Analysis included 1 772 600 patients (experiencing 62 691 serious falls) from CPRD GOLD used in model development, and 3 805 366 (experiencing 206 956 serious falls) from CPRD Aurum in the external validation. The final model consisted of 24 predictors, including age, sex, ethnicity, alcohol consumption, living in an area of high social deprivation, a history of falls, multiple sclerosis, and prescriptions of antihypertensives, antidepressants, hypnotics, and anxiolytics. Upon external validation, the recalibrated model showed good discrimination, with pooled C statistics of 0.833 (95% confidence interval 0.831 to 0.835) and 0.843 (0.841 to 0.844) at five and 10 years, respectively. Original model calibration was poor on visual inspection and although this was improved with recalibration, under-prediction of risk remained (observed to expected ratio at 10 years 1.839, 95% confidence interval 1.811 to 1.865). Nevertheless, decision curve analysis suggests potential clinical utility, with net benefit larger than other strategies. Conclusions: This prediction model uses commonly recorded clinical characteristics and distinguishes well between patients at high and low risk of falls in the next 1-10 years. Although miscalibration was evident on external validation, the model still had potential clinical utility around risk thresholds of 10% and so could be useful in routine clinical practice to help identify those at high risk of falls who might benefit from closer monitoring or early intervention to prevent future falls. Further studies are needed to explore the appropriate thresholds that maximise the model's clinical utility and cost effectiveness.
Validation of the Kinetik Blood Pressure Monitor—Series 1 for use in adults at home and in clinical settings, according to the 2002 European Society of Hypertension International Protocol on the validation of blood pressure devices
The aim of this study was to assess the blood pressure (BP) measurement accuracy of the Kinetik Blood Pressure Monitor—Series 1 (BPM-1) for use in home or clinical settings according to the 2002 European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP). Forty-two participants were recruited to fulfil the required number of systolic and diastolic BP measurements according to the ESH-IP. Nine sequential same-arm BP readings were measured and analysed for each participant using the test device and observer mercury standard readings according to the 2002 ESH-IP. Forty one participants were used to obtain 33 sets of systolic and diastolic BP readings and were included in the analysis. Mean difference between the device measurements and the observer (mercury standard) measurements was 1.1 ± 7.2/1.1 ± 6.8 mmHg (mean ± standard deviation; systolic/diastolic). The number of systolic BP differences between the test and observer measurements that fell within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg was 65, 86 and 92. For diastolic readings, the number of test—observer measurement differences within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg was 77, 91 and 94. The number of participants with at least two out of three differences within 5 mmHg was 28 for systolic and 40 for diastolic BP readings. Three participants had no differences between the test and observer measurements within 5 mmHg in both the systolic and diastolic measurement categories. The Kinetik BPM-1 device fulfilled the requirements of the ESH-IP validation procedure and can be recommended for clinical use and self-measurement within the home.