Analysing the concept of diagnostic inertia in hypertension: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to quantify diagnostic inertia (DI) when the physician fails to diagnose hypertension and determine its associated factors. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational study involved all patients without a diagnosis of hypertension who had their blood pressure (BP) measured at least three times during the second half of 2010 (N = 48,605). Patients with altered mean BP figures (≥ 140/90 mmHg) were considered to experience DI. Secondary variables: gender, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease, age and the physician having attended a cardiovascular training course (ESCARVAL). Associated factors were assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Diagnostic inertia was present in 6450 patients (13.3%, 95% CI: 13.0-13.6%). Factors significantly associated with DI were: male gender (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.37-1.55, p < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58-0.92, p = 0.007), the ESCARVAL cardiovascular course (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81-0.96, p = 0.005), diabetes mellitus (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99, p = 0.016), cardiovascular disease (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.88, p < 0.001) and older age (years) (18-44→OR = 1; 45-59→OR = 12.45, 95% CI: 11.11-13.94; 60-74→OR = 18.11, 95% CI: 16.30-20.12; ≥ 75→OR = 20.43, 95% CI: 18.34-22.75; p < 0.001). The multivariate model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80-0.81, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study will help clinical researchers differentiate between the two forms of DI (interpretation of a positive screening test and interpretation of positive diagnostic criteria). The results found here in patients with hypertension suggest that this problem is prevalent, and that a set of associated factors can explain the outcome well (AUC>0.80).

Home blood pressure self-measurement: "Current situation and new perspectives".

The method typically used to diagnose and monitor hypertensive patients has been to measure blood pressure in the physician's surgery; however, it is a well-known fact that this approach poses certain drawbacks, such as observer bias, failure to detect an alert reaction in the clinic, etc., difficulties that affect its accuracy as a diagnostic method. In recent years, the varying international scientific societies have persistently recommended the use of blood pressure measurements outside the clinic (at home or in the outpatient setting), using validated automatic devices. Data from some studies suggest that if we rely solely on in-office measurements, approximately 15-20% of the time we may be wrong when making decisions, both in terms of diagnosis and patient follow-up. Home blood pressure measurements are a simple and very affordable method that has a similar reproducibility and prognostic value as ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, the availability of which is currently very limited. Moreover, ambulatory self-measurements have the significant benefit of being able to improve control of hypertensive individuals. Healthcare professionals and patients should be aware of the methodology of home blood pressure measurement, its usefulness and limitations.

Have the Government's prescription algorithm and the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for managing dyslipidaemia influenced the management of dyslipidaemia? The MEJORALO-CV Project. / ¿Han influido el algoritmo de prescripción de la Administración y las guías de manejo de la dislipemia de la ACC/AHA 2013 en el manejo de la dislipemia? Proyecto MEJORA-LO CV.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the management of dyslipidaemia in primary care after the publication of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2013 guidelines and Valencian government's algorithm. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study that employed a survey of primary care physicians of the Community of Valencia between January and October 2016. RESULTS: A total of 199 physicians (mean age, 48.9±11.0 years; experience, 21.3±11.1 years) participated in the survey. The most followed guidelines were those of the European Society of Cardiology (37.5% of respondents) and Valencian government (23.4% of respondents). Some 6.3% of the respondents followed the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, and 88.0% established objectives based on LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. The choice of lipid-lowering drug was based on its LDL cholesterol lowering capacity (28.6% of respondents), on the Valencian government's algorithm (23.4%) and on the drug's safety (20.4%). Statins, ezetimibe and fibrates were the preferred hypolipemiant agents, and their combination (51% of respondents) and dosage increases (35%) were the strategies employed for poor control. Lipid profile and transaminase and creatine kinase levels were measured every 6 (59.5%, 52.3% and 54.3% of respondents, respectively) or 12 months (25.1%, 29.2% and 30.3%, respectively). Forty-one percent of the respondents were aware of the controversy surrounding the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. Although 60% of the respondents acknowledged its relevance, only 21% changed their daily practices accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The Valencian government's algorithm had a greater impact than the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines in primary care in Valencia. Areas for improvement included the low use of validated guidelines and risk tables and the streamlining of laboratory test periodicity.