To the Editor: Neal and Irwig1 argue that more precise measurement of blood pressure using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is unlikely to deliver the clinical and economic benefits that could be achieved by switching to a risk-based strategy, such as that advocated by the National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance.2 Moreover, they question: do you need to “know your numbers”? However, all risk-based strategies are based on numbers for blood pressure and various lipid parameters. Furthermore, despite a wealth of evidence that numbers-based approaches reduce cardiovascular events, I am not aware of any randomised controlled trial demonstrating the superiority, or even the equivalence, of a strategy based on 5-year absolute risk for cardiovascular prevention.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Neal BC, Irwig L. Not much need for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 634-635. <MJA full text>
- 2. National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance. Guidelines for the assessment of absolute cardiovascular disease risk. Melbourne: National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2009. http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/information-for-professionals/Clinical-Information/Pages/absolute-risk.aspx (accessed Dec 2011).
- 3. Lloyd-Jones DM, Leip EP, Larson MG, et al. Prediction of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease by risk factor burden at 50 years of age. Circulation 2006; 113: 791-798.
No relevant disclosures.