Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it cost-effective?

L. R. Krakoff, Clyde B. Schechter, M. Fahs, M. Andre

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The detection and treatment of hypertension can prevent cerebrovascular disease and, to some extent, coronary heart disease. For mild hypertension this process is not efficient because many patients must be treated with antihypertensive medication to benefit only a few. The costs of identification, diagnosis and drug treatment of mild hypertension are significant. These costs have increased recently, in part due to changing patterns of drug selection favoring newer agents. Primary and secondary screening for hypertension has relied on casual blood pressure measurement which has high sensitivity, but low specificity, i.e. many false-positives can be expected. Incorporation of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring into secondary screening has potential for greater specificity by excluding from treatment 20-40% of those initially identified as having mild hypertension. Computer analysis of simulated populations selected for treatment by either casual blood pressure or by use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring with echocardiography (for borderline cases) demonstrates no difference in calculated life expectancy for the two groups. However, the former strategy selected 23% of the subjects for treatment, while the latter selected 6%. These results imply that appropriate use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in secondary screening of mild hypertension may have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Hypertension
Volume9
Issue numberSUPPL. 8
StatePublished - 1991
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring
Hypertension
Costs and Cost Analysis
Blood Pressure
Therapeutics
Cerebrovascular Disorders
Life Expectancy
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Antihypertensive Agents
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Coronary Disease
Echocardiography
Sensitivity and Specificity
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Endocrinology
  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring : Is it cost-effective? / Krakoff, L. R.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Fahs, M.; Andre, M.

In: Journal of Hypertension, Vol. 9, No. SUPPL. 8, 1991.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Krakoff, LR, Schechter, CB, Fahs, M & Andre, M 1991, 'Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it cost-effective?', Journal of Hypertension, vol. 9, no. SUPPL. 8.
Krakoff, L. R. ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Fahs, M. ; Andre, M. / Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring : Is it cost-effective?. In: Journal of Hypertension. 1991 ; Vol. 9, No. SUPPL. 8.
@article{7b74dfed5c7f42aabfa5f3dad59b857e,
title = "Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it cost-effective?",
abstract = "The detection and treatment of hypertension can prevent cerebrovascular disease and, to some extent, coronary heart disease. For mild hypertension this process is not efficient because many patients must be treated with antihypertensive medication to benefit only a few. The costs of identification, diagnosis and drug treatment of mild hypertension are significant. These costs have increased recently, in part due to changing patterns of drug selection favoring newer agents. Primary and secondary screening for hypertension has relied on casual blood pressure measurement which has high sensitivity, but low specificity, i.e. many false-positives can be expected. Incorporation of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring into secondary screening has potential for greater specificity by excluding from treatment 20-40{\%} of those initially identified as having mild hypertension. Computer analysis of simulated populations selected for treatment by either casual blood pressure or by use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring with echocardiography (for borderline cases) demonstrates no difference in calculated life expectancy for the two groups. However, the former strategy selected 23{\%} of the subjects for treatment, while the latter selected 6{\%}. These results imply that appropriate use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in secondary screening of mild hypertension may have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.",
author = "Krakoff, {L. R.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and M. Fahs and M. Andre",
year = "1991",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "Journal of Hypertension",
issn = "0263-6352",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "SUPPL. 8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

T2 - Is it cost-effective?

AU - Krakoff, L. R.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Fahs, M.

AU - Andre, M.

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - The detection and treatment of hypertension can prevent cerebrovascular disease and, to some extent, coronary heart disease. For mild hypertension this process is not efficient because many patients must be treated with antihypertensive medication to benefit only a few. The costs of identification, diagnosis and drug treatment of mild hypertension are significant. These costs have increased recently, in part due to changing patterns of drug selection favoring newer agents. Primary and secondary screening for hypertension has relied on casual blood pressure measurement which has high sensitivity, but low specificity, i.e. many false-positives can be expected. Incorporation of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring into secondary screening has potential for greater specificity by excluding from treatment 20-40% of those initially identified as having mild hypertension. Computer analysis of simulated populations selected for treatment by either casual blood pressure or by use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring with echocardiography (for borderline cases) demonstrates no difference in calculated life expectancy for the two groups. However, the former strategy selected 23% of the subjects for treatment, while the latter selected 6%. These results imply that appropriate use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in secondary screening of mild hypertension may have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.

AB - The detection and treatment of hypertension can prevent cerebrovascular disease and, to some extent, coronary heart disease. For mild hypertension this process is not efficient because many patients must be treated with antihypertensive medication to benefit only a few. The costs of identification, diagnosis and drug treatment of mild hypertension are significant. These costs have increased recently, in part due to changing patterns of drug selection favoring newer agents. Primary and secondary screening for hypertension has relied on casual blood pressure measurement which has high sensitivity, but low specificity, i.e. many false-positives can be expected. Incorporation of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring into secondary screening has potential for greater specificity by excluding from treatment 20-40% of those initially identified as having mild hypertension. Computer analysis of simulated populations selected for treatment by either casual blood pressure or by use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring with echocardiography (for borderline cases) demonstrates no difference in calculated life expectancy for the two groups. However, the former strategy selected 23% of the subjects for treatment, while the latter selected 6%. These results imply that appropriate use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in secondary screening of mild hypertension may have a significant impact on cost-effectiveness.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026343976&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026343976&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1795198

AN - SCOPUS:0026343976

VL - 9

JO - Journal of Hypertension

JF - Journal of Hypertension

SN - 0263-6352

IS - SUPPL. 8

ER -