• J Mar, R Pastor, and R Abásolo.
• Servicio de Gestión Clínica, Hospital Alto Deba, Mondragón, Guipúzcoa, 20500, España.
• Gac Sanit. 1999 Sep 1; 13 (5): 384-90.

BackgroundTo contrast the costs of conventional and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) methods in the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of mild hypertensive patients.MethodsAmong patients with conventional diagnosis of mild hypertension, the ABPM would discriminate patients with sustained hypertension, who would receive drug treatment, from patients with white coat hypertension (WCH), who would be only followed up. The diagnosis, treatment and control costs were obtained from 446 mild hypertensive patients from the Primary Health Care Center Aranbizkarra II (Vitoria, Spain) during 1996. For each gender, the overall costs per patient were estimated in both conventional and ABPM methods in terms of mean diagnosis age and WCH percentage.ResultsFor 45 years old patients and 30% of WCH, the overall costs per patient among men were 414,999 and 371, 101 pesetas with conventional and ABPM methods, respectively. From 30 to 60 years old patients, the ABPM method turned up to be less expensive as long as the WCH percentage was higher than 6%. Similar results were obtained among women with mild hypertension.ConclusionsABPM can be accepted as an useful clinical tool for the screening of patients with conventional diagnosis of mild hypertension. On the one hand, ABPM allows to select patients with low cardiovascular risk (WCH). On the other hand, the savings resulting from treatment reduction and fewer physician visits are higher than the additional costs of ABPM recordings.

23 keywords...

hide…