PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

X Girerd

Publications and source records attributed to X Girerd.

116 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

[Factors predicting blood pressure normalization in hypertensive patients treated with a fixed-dose combination of bisoprolol 2.5 mg/hydrochlorothiazide/6.25 mg].

It is not clear which duration of treatment is needed to achieve complete efficacy with fixed low dose antihypertensive therapy. The aim of this study was to compare blood pressure control rate in patients treated with bisoprolol 2.5 mg/HCTZ 6.25 mg, not controlled after 4 weeks, but treated at the same dosage for one more month to patients not controlled after 4 weeks, and uptitrated to bisoprolol 5 mg/HCTZ 6.25 mg for one month. The 641 patients who entered the study had a mean age of 58 +/- 12 with SBP/DBP at baseline of 165 +/- 12/96 +/- 7 mmHg. After 4 weeks, 252 (39%) where normalized (< 140/90) with SBP/DBP reductions of -27/-15 mmHg. In uncontrolled patients, 19% of those randomized to B 2.5 mg/H 6.25 mg and 33% of those treated with B 5 mg/H 6.25 mg where normalized at the end of the study (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicates determinants of blood pressure normalisation after 4 weeks with B2.5 mg/HCTZ 6.25 mg as female gender, initial BP < 175/105 mmHg, previously untreated hypertension, age < 50 years. In conclusion, when the initial therapy with bisoprolol 2.5 mg/HCTZ 6.25 mg is not sufficient to control blood pressure, continuation with the same dosage 4 weeks longer increases the rate of blood pressure control. However, up-titration to bisoprolol 5 mg/6.25 mg is more efficacious to increase the number of patients with a final blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Association between blood pressure level and the follow up of the guidelines concerning the use of self blood pressure measurement].

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the characteristics of hypertensive subjects who practise self measurement of blood pressure (SMBP) and their conditions of use, and to identify the properties of subjects using SMBP according the usual guidelines. METHODS: In 531 consecutive hypertensive subjects, referred to hypertension specialists, possessing a SMBP a questionnaire evaluating the condition of use of SMBP was given. Subjects following the guidelines about the use of SMBP have been compared to those using SMBP without specific design of supervision. RESULTS: In this population, aged 62 +/- 14 years, with 57% of men and a mean blood pressure of 147 +/- 23/82 +/- 12 mmHg, the SMBP devices have been bought without medical advice in 50% of cases (265/531). In 45% of cases (239/531), SMBP were made at the wrist. SMBP device was used every days in 26% of cases, every weeks in 27% of cases, every month or more in 22% of cases and only in case of uneasiness in 25% of cases. Blood pressure was measured only in the morning in 25% of cases, in the morning and evening in 31%, only the evening in 8% and at any time of the day in 36% of cases. More frequently 2 BP measurements were realized (47%) and in 19% of cases 3 measurements have been performed. In 15% of cases, the measurements were performed on 3 or 4 days consecutively, more frequently (85%) the measurements were realized without specific design ("once in awhile"). The data of SMBP were noted and showed to the doctor in 34% of cases. Only 12% (64/531) of subjects followed the usual guidelines concerning the use of SMBP (2 or 3 measurements, in the morning and the evening, during 3 or 4 consecutive days). Subjects following the guidelines for SMBP use have a higher SBP at the office than those using SMBP without specific design of supervision (155 +/- 25 mmHg vs 146 +/- 22 mmHg; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Among hypertensives referred to hypertension specialists most of subjects use SMBP device without a specific design of supervision. Subjects with the most severe hypertension are those who have the best formation for SMBP.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Systolic blood pressures are not comparable when home blood pressure is measured with a wrist or an arm validated monitor].

OBJECTIVES: To compare home blood pressure values obtained with two validated OMRON (wrist or arm) monitors used sequentially in the same subject. METHODS: In 265 hypertensive subjects referred to hypertension specialists, a self measurement of blood pressure was performed sequentially with an OMRON M4-I (arm cuff, A/A, BHS validation) or OMRON RX-I (wrist cuff, B/B, BHS validation). Each patient recorded home blood pressure during two periods of 4 days with 3 measures in the morning and 3 in the evening. Order for use of each monitor was randomised. With wrist devices, subjects were advised to keep the arm at heart level during measurements. BP values were reported on a standardized document. Patients were asked by a questionnaire about the tolerance and feasibility of the 2 methods. RESULTS: In this population, aged 59 +/- 14 years, with 60% of men and a mean blood pressure of 152 +/- 21 / 86 +/- 14 mmHg, the home blood pressure values were 143 +/- 20/81 +/- 11 mmHg with the arm monitor and 135 +/- 10 / 80 +/- 11 mmHg with the wrist monitor. Mean SBP adjusted on age, initial blood pressure level and period order was significantly lower when home blood pressure monitoring has been recorded with a wrist monitor as compared to an arm monitor (p < 0.001). Self measurement of blood pressure was felt as easy in 92% with the arm monitor and in 96% with the wrist monitor (p < 0.05). Self measurement of blood pressure was felt as constraining in 14% with the arm monitor and in 7% with the wrist monitor (p < 0.01). The feasibility between the two devices was good with none of the value missing in 86% with the arm monitor and in 85% with the wrist monitor. The missing values were in 56% the fourth day. CONCLUSION: Despite the use of two validated monitors, mean SBP is significantly lower when home blood pressure monitoring is recorded with a wrist monitor as compared to an arm monitor. Uncertainty in the arm position with the use of wrist device could explain these results. When advising home blood pressure monitoring, care should be taken to recommend only the use of validated devices and to prefer the use of arm devices in order to avoid the uncertainty of an inadequate utilisation.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Use of home blood pressure devices in France in 2004].

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of devices for home blood pressure measurements in the French population in 2004 and to evaluate the use of these apparatus. METHODS: The French League Against Hypertension Survey 2004 (FLAHS-2004) was performed cross-sectionally on 3707 subjects, part of a sample of 5476 subjects selected as being representative of the French metropolitan population for age (35 years and above), gender, socioeconomic status, and place of living. Subjects who declare to take an antihypertensive medication were classified as treated hypertensive patients. A questionnaire evaluating the condition of use of HBP device was given. RESULTS: In 2004, 24% of the French population above the age of 35 years was treated for hypertension, corresponding to an estimate of 7.5 million of subjects. 25% of treated hypertensives and 12% of untreated subjects had a tensiometer. A total of 4 millions of BP devices are owned in the general population with 43% by treated hypertensive patients. 67% of BP devices are wrist cuff. Medical doctors recommended home blood pressure monitoring in only 12% of subjects. CONCLUSION: In 2004, the number of subjects treated for hypertension is 1/4 of the general population over the age of 35 years in France. In this group of subjects, 1/4 possessed a tensiometer but in only 10% medical doctor recommended the use of home blood pressure monitoring.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Changes in life style and drug therapy for treatment of hypertension in France between 2002 and 2004].

OBJECTIVES: To estimate changes in life style and drug therapy for treatment of hypertension in France between 2002 and 2004. METHODS: The French League Against Hypertension Survey 2004 (FLAHS-2004) was performed cross-sectionally on 3 707 subjects, part of a sample of 5476 subjects selected as being representative of the French metropolitan population for age (35 years and above), gender, socioeconomic status, and place of living. Subjects who declare to take an antihypertensive medication were classified as treated hypertensive patients. A questionnaire evaluating changes in life style during the last year (physical activities, quality of food consumption, smoking, and alcohol habits) was auto-administered. RESULTS: In 2004, 24% of the French population above the age of 35 years was treated for hypertension, corresponding to an estimate of 7.5 million of subjects. The two most frequent prescribed drugs are: fixed-dose combination drugs and beta-blockers in patients aged less than 75 years, and calcium antagonist and fixed-dose combination drugs in patients aged more than 75 years. Hypertensive subjects experienced: a weight loss of more than 3 kg in 11% vs 9%* in the general population, an increased in fruits and vegetables consumption in 41% vs 34%*, a decreased in cheese (21 vs 17%*), pork-butchery (46 vs 34%*) and alcohol consumption (23 vs 18%*) [*p < 0.01]. On the other hand, the percentage of subjects who increased their physical activities was low and not different in the two groups (7 vs 9%). CONCLUSION: Changes in life style were more often applied by the subjects treated for hypertension that by the general population. The dominating place that occupies today fixed-dose combination drugs indicates a change of the therapeutic practices.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Home blood pressure monitoring in addition to office blood pressure determination is useful in patients with systolic hypertension before their inclusion into a drug trial].

OBJECTIVE: In patients with uncontrolled systolic hypertension, to estimate the value of home blood pressure monitoring in addition to office blood pressure for inclusion in a trial. METHODS: 80 patients with systolic hypertension, defined as SBP > or =140 mmHg and pulse pressure > or =60 mmHg, were treated for 4 weeks with a thiazide diuretic at usual dose (25 mg HCTZ or 1.5 mg indapamide or methyclothiazide 5 mg). Blood pressure was measured using an automatic monitor (Omron M6) at office and at home in the 3 days prior the visit. Subjects with an uncontrolled hypertension were included in the second part of the trial only if there fulfilled inclusion criteria: office SBP > or =140 mmHg and home SBP > or =135 mmHg (mean of 18 measurements obtained on 3 consecutive days) and office pulse pressure > or =60 mmHg. RESULTS: After 4 weeks with diuretic treatment, 62% of patients fulfilled 3 criteria and were included in the second part of the trial. It was observed 76% of patients with office SBP > or =140 mmHg, 72% with office pulse pressure > or =60 mmHg and 70% with both office SBP and PP criteria. However, only 67% of patients had home SBP > or =135 mmHg. Discrepancy between office and home SBP was observed and subjects with a white coat hypertension was noticed in 14% and masked hypertension in 5%. CONCLUSION: If patients with systolic hypertension have to be included into a drug trial because there are uncontrolled, home blood pressure monitoring in addition to office blood pressure is a very useful criteria for inclusion because misclassifications due to white coat or masked hypertension is frequent in these patients.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Assessement of home blood pressure with a monitor including MAM technology: comparison with the standard monitor].

OBJECTIVES: To compare two periods of three days of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) using two different monitors with one including MAM (microlife average mode) technology. METHODS: In 152 hypertensive subjects referred to hypertension specialists, a self-measurement of blood pressure was performed sequentially with an Omron M6 (arm cuff, A/A, BHS validation) or Microlife BP-3AC1 with the MAM technology. Each patient recorded home blood pressure during two periods of 3 days with 3 measures in the morning and 3 in the evening. Order for use of each monitor was randomised. BP values were reported on a standardized document. RESULTS: In this population, aged 60 +/- 14 years, with 57% of men and a mean blood pressure of 150 +/- 21/84 +/- 21 mmHg, the home blood pressure values were 141.5 +/- 18.7/79.9 +/- 9.6 mmHg with the OMRON monitor and 138.2 +/- 17.1/79.9 +/- 10.1 mmHg with the Microlife monitor. Values between the two monitors differed about 5 mmHg for the mean SBP and about 2.8 mmHg for the mean DBP. The mean HBPM values does not differ between the two methods for more than 2.5 mmHg, 5 mmHg, 10 mmHg and 15 mmHg in 29%, 49%, 80% and 90% for SBP and in 42%, 76%, 94% and 98% for DBP respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For most of patients, mean SBP/DBP obtained with home blood pressure Measurement during three days are comparable when using monitor operated with MAM technology or not.

Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory↗