Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Blood pressure outcomes at 12 months in primary care patients prescribed remote physiological monitoring for hypertension: a prospective cohort study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Blood pressure outcomes at 12 months in primary care patients prescribed remote physiological monitoring for hypertension: a prospective cohort study
Do you wish to request the book?
Blood pressure outcomes at 12 months in primary care patients prescribed remote physiological monitoring for hypertension: a prospective cohort study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Blood pressure outcomes at 12 months in primary care patients prescribed remote physiological monitoring for hypertension: a prospective cohort study
2023
Overview
Remote patient monitoring (RPM) for hypertension enables automatic transmission of blood pressure (BP) and pulse into the electronic health record (EHR), but its effectiveness in primary care is unknown. This pragmatic matched cohort study using EHR data compared BP outcomes between individuals prescribed RPM and temporally-matched controls from six primary care practices. We retrospectively created a cohort of 288 Medicare-enrolled patients prescribed BP RPM (cases) and 1152 propensity score-matched controls (1:4). Matching was based on age, sex, systolic blood pressure (SBP), marital status, and other characteristics. Outcomes at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months were: controlling high BP (most recent BP < 140/90 mm Hg), antihypertensive medication intensification, and most recent SBP assessed using: all measurements, and office measurements only. At baseline, RPM-prescribed patients and controls had similar ages and systolic BP. BP control diverged at 3 months (RPM: 72.2%, control: 51%, p < 0.001). This difference persisted but decreased over follow-up. After 12 months, the RPM-prescribed cohort had greater BP control (RPM: 71.5%, control: 58.1%, p < 0.001) and lower SBP (132.3 versus 136.5 mm Hg, p = 0.003) using all measurements, but they did not differ using only office measurements (12 month BP control: 60.8% versus 58.1%, p = 0.44; SBP: 135.9 versus 136.5 mm Hg, p = 0.91). At 12 months, the most recent BP measurements were more current for RPM-prescribed patients (median [IQR] 8 [0–109] versus 134 [56–239] days). Net increases in antihypertensive medications by 12 months were similar. Implementation of RPM in primary care could inform hypertension management strategies and increase hypertension control. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05562921.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group
