37 KB120 KB33 KB192920262009Kersnik, JankoPetek Šter, Marijaštevilka:6/7letnik:78str. 295-301ISSN:1318-0347COBISSID:25971929URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-4X56MSMFslSlovensko zdravniško društvoZdravniški vestnikAntihipertenziviAntihypertensive Agentsarterijska hipertenzijaBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryDrug TherapyDružinska medicinaFamily PracticeHipertenzijaHypertensionKrvni pritisk, ambulantno merjenjekrvni tlakmerjenjeVpliv 24-urnega neinvazivnega merjenja krvnega tlaka na obravnavo bolnikov z arterijsko hipertenzijo v družinski medicini| Impact of 24-hours non-invasive blood pressure monitoring on hypertension management in general practice|Background Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) gives important additional information to office blood-pressure measurements in diagnostic andtreatment of patients with high blood pressure. The aim of our survey is tofind out the impact of ABPM on management of arterial hypertension in primary care.Patients and We included 339 consecutive patients with uncontrolled arterial hypertension, treated with methods at least two different antihypertensive drug classes in 38 general practitionerćs offices in Slovenia. We randomly divided patients into the test (ABPM) and the controlgroup (office measurements only). After 12 weeks we assessed the impactof ABPM on management of arterial hypertension. results We analysed dataof 339 patients: 160 in the testing and 179 in the control group, aged from 34 to 80 years (mean 61.4 years, SD 9.8 years) with mean systolic blood pressure 159.2 (SD 12.5) mm Hg and mean diastolic blood pressure 92.1 (SD 8.7)mm Hg. 45 (28.1 %) of patients after ABPM have controlled blood pressure. Possibility for controlled blood pressure is higher in female (OR = 5.445, 95 % CI: 2.16-13.76) and patients with lower mean office blood pressure (OR = 0.931, 95 % CI: 0.84-0.97). Performance of ABPM did not have impact on the number of hypertension related office visits (1.6 in tested vs. 1.7 in controlgroup, p = 0.306). Patients in the testing group less often underwent changes of antihypertensive drug therapy (52.5 % vs. 66.5 % in the control group, p = 0.009). Conclusions White coat effect is common in patients on combined antihypertensive therapy in primary care. APBM did not reduce the number of office visits, but reduced the probability of antihypertensive drug changesTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaSlovensko zdravniško društvo