Cost-effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the follow-up of hypertension

Aims. To study the cost of the follow-up of hypertension in primary care (PC) using clinical blood pressure (CBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and to analyse the cost-effectiveness (CE) of both methods. Major findings and principal conclusion. Good control of hypertension was ach...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Blood pressure 2006, Vol.15 (1), p.27-36
Main Authors: Rodriguez-Roca, Gustavo C., Alonso-Moreno, Francisco J., Garcia-Jimenez, Almudena, Hidalgo-Vega, Alvaro, Llisterri-Caro, Jose L., Barrios-Alonso, Vivencio, Segura-Fragoso, Antonio, Clemente-Lirola, Elvira, Estepa-Jorge, Susana, Delgado-Cejudo, Yolanda, Lopez-Abuin, Jose M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring
Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - economics
Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory - trends
clinical blood pressure
Cost-Benefit Analysis - methods
cost-effectiveness
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Humans
Hypertension - economics
hypertension follow-up
Male
Middle Aged
primary care
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aims. To study the cost of the follow-up of hypertension in primary care (PC) using clinical blood pressure (CBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and to analyse the cost-effectiveness (CE) of both methods. Major findings and principal conclusion. Good control of hypertension was achieved in 8.3% with CBP (95% CI 4.8-11.8) and in 55.6% with ABPM (95% CI 49.3-61.9). The cost of one patient with good control of hypertension is almost four times higher with CBP than with ABPM (€940 vs €238). Reaching the gold standard (ABPM) involved an after-cost of €115 per patient. The results for a 5% discount rate showed a saving of €68,883 if ABPM was performed in all the patients included in the study (n = 241, €285 per patient). An analysis of sensitivity, changing the discount rate and life expectancy indicated that ABPM provides a better CE ratio and a lower global cost. ABPM is more cost-effective than CBP. However, if we include the new treatment cost of poorly monitored patients, it is less cost-effective. Excellent control of hypertension is still an important challenge for all healthcare professionals, especially for those working in PC, where most monitoring of hypertensive patients takes place.
ISSN:0803-7051
1651-1999
DOI:10.1080/08037050500493460