In-class Active Video Game Supplementation and Adherence to Cardiac Rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: The application of active video games (AVGs) during cardiac rehabilitation (CR) sessions could potentially facilitate patient adherence. The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of in-class AVG supplementation as an alternative to conventional phase 2 programs were investigated. METHODS: A pilot, evaluator-blinded, intention-to-treat, randomized controlled trial recruited 32 low-moderate risk CR participants and allocated them to conventional or AVG-supplemented exercise. Both groups experienced equal exercise loads for 6 weeks. Patients were assessed at baseline, end of the program, and after an 8-week followup. Adherence and safety-related outcomes were the primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes included change in exercise capacity, daily physical activity (PA), energy expenditure (EE), and psychometric profiling. RESULTS: Patients (males 81%; 60 ± 10 years) presented with typical cardiovascular risk factors and similar baseline characteristics. Participants did not perceive an increased risk of injury and were more interactive. At the end of the program, there was a lower tendency for dropping out (6% vs 19%, P > .05), a significant improvement in PA (322 vs 247 arbitrary acceleration units/min, P = .047) and related EE per body weight (13 vs 11 kcal/kg/d, P = .04) among AVG participants compared with controls. No significant differences between groups for adverse medical events, exercise capacity, affect toward exercise, anxiety, depression, or quality-of-life changes were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The additional use of AVGs during CR sessions is feasible, safe, and significantly improved daily PA and EE. A dropout reduction trend among its users, which needs to be confirmed in a larger trial, raises awareness to AVG supplementation as a promising strategy to increase CR adherence.

Self-measured versus ambulatory blood pressure in the diagnosis of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: We examined to what extent self-measurement of blood pressure at home (HBP) can be an alternative to ambulatory monitoring (ABP) to diagnose white-coat hypertension. METHODS: In 247 untreated patients, we compared the white-coat effects obtained by HBP and ABP. The thresholds to diagnose hypertension were > or = 140/> or = 90 mmHg for conventional blood pressure (CBP) and > or = 135/> or = 85 mmHg for daytime ABP and HBP. RESULTS: Mean systolic/diastolic CBP, HBP and ABP were 155.4/100.0, 143.1/91.5 and 148.1/95.0 mmHg, respectively. The white-coat effect was 5.0/3.5 mmHg larger on HBP compared with ABP (12.3/8.6 versus 7.2/5.0 mmHg; P < 0.001). The correlation coefficients between the white-coat effects based on HBP and ABP were 0.74 systolic and 0.60 diastolic (P < 0.001). With ABP as a reference, the specificity of HBP to detect white-coat hypertension was 88.6%, and the sensitivity was 68.4%. CONCLUSION: Our findings are in line with the recommendations of the ASH Ad Hoc Panel that recommends HBP for screening while ABP has a better prognostic accuracy.

Antihypertensive treatment based on home or office blood pressure--the THOP trial.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, conducted in 400 hypertensive patients [sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >95 mmHg], blood pressure-lowering therapy was adjusted in a stepwise manner, either on the basis of the self-measured DBP at home or on the basis of conventional DBP measured at the doctor's office. RESULTS: Therapy guided by home blood pressure instead of office blood pressure led to less intensive drug treatment and marginally lower costs, but also to less blood pressure control with no differences in left ventricular mass. Self-measurement helped to identify patients with white-coat hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings support a stepwise strategy for the evaluation of blood pressure, in which self-measurement and ambulatory monitoring are complementary to conventional office blood pressure measurement.

Antihypertensive treatment based on blood pressure measurement at home or in the physician's office: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Self-measurement of blood pressure is increasingly used in clinical practice, but how it affects the treatment of hypertension requires further study. OBJECTIVE: To compare use of blood pressure (BP) measurements taken in physicians' offices and at home in the treatment of patients with hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Blinded randomized controlled trial conducted from March 1997 to April 2002 at 56 primary care practices and 3 hospital-based outpatient clinics in Belgium and 1 specialized hypertension clinic in Dublin, Ireland. Four hundred participants with a diastolic BP (DBP) of 95 mm Hg or more as measured at physicians' offices were enrolled and followed up for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Antihypertensive drug treatment was adjusted in a stepwise fashion based on either the self-measured DBP at home (average of 6 measurements per day during 1 week; n = 203) or the average of 3 sitting DBP readings at the physician's office (n = 197). If the DBP guiding treatment was above (>89 mm Hg), at (80-89 mm Hg), or below (<80 mm Hg) target, a physician blinded to randomization intensified antihypertensive treatment, left it unchanged, or reduced it, respectively. MEAN OUTCOME MEASURES: Office and home BP levels, 24-hour ambulatory BP, intensity of drug treatment, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic left ventricular mass, symptoms reported by questionnaire, and costs of treatment. RESULTS: At the end of the study (median follow-up, 350 days; interquartile range, 326-409 days), more home BP than office BP patients had stopped antihypertensive drug treatment (25.6% vs 11.3%; P<.001) with no significant difference in the proportions of patients progressing to multiple-drug treatment (38.7% vs 45.1%; P =.14). The final office, home, and 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements were higher (P<.001) in the home BP group than in the office BP group. The mean baseline-adjusted systolic/diastolic differences between the home and office BP groups averaged 6.8/3.5 mm Hg, 4.9/2.9 mm Hg, and 4.9/2.9 mm Hg, respectively. Left ventricular mass and reported symptoms were similar in the 2 groups. Costs per 100 patients followed up for 1 month were only slightly lower in the home BP group (3875 vs 3522 [4921 dollars vs 4473 dollars]; P =.04). CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment of antihypertensive treatment based on home BP instead of office BP led to less intensive drug treatment and marginally lower costs but also to less BP control, with no differences in general well-being or left ventricular mass. Self-measurement allowed identification of patients with white-coat hypertension. Our findings support a stepwise strategy for the evaluation of BP in which self-measurement and ambulatory monitoring are complementary to conventional office measurement and highlight the need for prospective outcome studies to establish the normal range of home-measured BP.