Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To compare a cardiovascular risk (CVR)-adjusted with the traditional blood pressure (BP) control rate for assessing BP control and consequent target populations for intensified treatment.

Methods

Model calculation using cross-sectional data retrieved from 89 German general practices; a random sample of 3355 patients with known hypertension was consecutively enrolled by their general practitioners. Cardiovascular history and risk factors were documented. In addition to the traditional control rate (fixed BP target <140/90), we calculated CVR-adjusted control rates, stratifying analyses according to three CVR categories and their corresponding BP targets on the basis of the European Cardiovascular Society’s SCORE tables: (1) very high CVR, owing to manifest cardiovascular disease (CVD), BP target <130/80; (2) high CVR, BP target <140/90; and (3) low CVR, BP target <160/100 mmHg.

Results

Traditional vs. CVR-adjusted BP control rates were 55.1 vs. 14.9% (manifest CVD, kappa 0.27), 36.7 vs. 35.8% (high CVR, kappa 0.98), 52.6 vs. 88.5% (low CVR, kappa 0.25), and 45.8 vs. 46.5% (overall, kappa 0.61). Among the study patients, 19.2% switched from ‘controlled’ to ‘uncontrolled’ or vice versa depending on the criterion applied.

Conclusions

Compared with the traditional BP control rate, the CVR-adjusted approach identifies a substantially different – although overall similarly large – target group for intensified cardiovascular risk reduction. Using CVR-adjusted BP control rates in surveys describing hypertension management could help to focus attention and resources on reducing CVR in patients who are likely to benefit from additional treatment efforts.

Keywords

Cardiovascular diseases general practice hypertension prevention and control primary care public health

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Egan

Zhao

Axon

. US trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension, 1988–2008. JAMA 2010; 303: 2043–2050.

McAlister

. Changes in the rates of awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in Canada over the past two decades. CMAJ 2011; 183: 1007–1013.

Lindblad

. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension: rule of thirds in the Skaraborg project. Scand J Prim Health Care 2012; 30: 88–94.

Wolf-Maier

. Hypertension treatment and control in five European countries, Canada, and the United States. Hypertension 2004; 43: 10–17.

Hedblad

. High blood pressure despite treatment: results from a cross-sectional primary healthcare-based study in southern Sweden. Scand J Prim Health Care 2006; 24: 224–230.

Boersma

. Blood pressure is insufficiently controlled in European patients with established coronary heart disease. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1831–1840.

Primatesta

Poulter

. Improvement in hypertension management in England: results from the Health Survey for England 2003. J Hypertens 2006; 24: 1187–1192.

Chobanian

. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003; 289: 2560–2572.

Geller

. Achievement of guideline-defined treatment goals in primary care: the German Coronary Risk Management (CoRiMa) study. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 3051–3058.

10.

Chobanian

. Major improvements in the control of hypertension in Canada. CMAJ 2011; 183: 996–997.

11.

Mancia

. 2007 ESH-ESC Practice Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: ESH-ESC Task Force on the Management of Arterial Hypertension. J Hypertens 2007; 25: 1751–1762.

12.

Williams

. British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 2004 (BHS-IV): summary. BMJ 2004; 328: 634–640.

13.

Deutsche Hochdruckliga. Leitlinien zu Diagnostik und Behandlung der arteriellen Hypertonie. Nieren- und Hochdruckkrankheiten 2005; 34: 481–489.

14.

Jackson

Lawes

CMM

Bennett

. Treatment with drugs to lower blood pressure and blood cholesterol based on an individual's absolute cardiovascular risk. Lancet 2005; 365: 434–441.

15.

Donner-Banzhoff

Sonnichsen

. Strategies for prescribing statins. BMJ 2008; 336: 288–289.

16.

European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). the Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur J Prev Cardiol 2012; 19: 585–667.

17.

Ludt S, Wensing M, Campbell SM, et al. The challenge of cardiovascular prevention in primary care: implications of a European observational study in 8928 patients at different risk levels. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2012 (Epub ahead of print 21 September).

18.

Rose

. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol 1985; 14: 32–38.

19.

Alderman

. Blood pressure management: individualized treatment based on absolute risk and the potential for benefit. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 329–335.

20.

Brekke

Rekdal

Straand

. Which population groups should be targeted for cardiovascular prevention? A modelling study based on the Norwegian Hordaland Health Study (HUSK). Scand J Prim Health Care 2007; 25: 105–111.

21.

Scheltens

Bots

Numans

. Awareness, treatment and control of hypertension: the ‘rule of halves' in an era of risk-based treatment of hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2007; 21: 99–106.

22.

Mortsiefer

Meysen

Schumacher

. CRISTOPH – a cluster-randomised intervention study to optimise the treatment of patients with hypertension in general practice. BMC Fam Pract 2008; 9: 33–33.

23.

Assmann

Cullen

Schulte

. Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular Munster (PROCAM) study. Circulation 2002; 105: 310–315.

24.

Christiaens

. Cardiovascular risk tables. BMJ 2008; 336: 1445–1446.

25.

Conroy

Pyörälä

Conroy

. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 987–1003.

26.

De Backer

Ambrosioni

Borch-Johnsen

. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Third Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice. Eur Heart J 2003; 24: 1601–1602.

27.

Deutsche Hochdruckliga. Neue Entwicklungen in der Hochdrucktherapie – Addendum zur Leitlinie 2011. Deutsche Hochdruckliga Available at: http://www.hochdruckliga.de/tl_files/content/dhl/downloads/DHL-Leitlinien-2011.pdf (2011, consulted October 2012).

28.

Fahey

Peters

. What constitutes controlled hypertension? Patient based comparison of hypertension guidelines. BMJ 1996; 313: 93–96.

29.

Thamm

. Blutdruck in Deutschland – Zustandsbeschreibung und Trends. Gesundheitswesen 1999; 61: 90–93.

30.

Luders

Schrader

Schmieder

. Improvement of hypertension management by structured physician education and feedback system: cluster randomized trial. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2010; 17: 271–279.

31.

Busse

. Disease management programs in Germany's statutory health insurance system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004; 23: 56–67.

32.

Rothe

Muller

Schwarz

. Evaluation of a diabetes management system based on practice guidelines, integrated care, and continuous quality management in a Federal State of Germany: a population-based approach to health care research. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 863–868.

33.

Statistisches Bundesamt. Gesundheit in Deutschland. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. Berlin: Robert Koch-Institut, 2006.

34.

Krones

Keller

Sönnichsen

. Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med 2008; 6: 218–227.

35.

van Steenkiste

van der Weijden

Stoffers

. Improving cardiovascular risk management: a randomized, controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2007; 14: 44–50.

36.