Introduction and Objectives The prevalence of hypertension in Portugal is between 29.1% and 42.2%. International studies show that 13% of individuals have masked hypertension and 13% of diagnoses based on office blood pressure measurements are in fact white coat hypertension. More sensitive and specific blood pressure measuring methods could avoid costs associated with misdiagnosis. The aim of this study was to review the cost‐effectiveness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared to other methods in the management of hypertension. Methods We performed a literature search in CMA Infobase, Guidelines Finder, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Bandolier, BMJ Clinical Evidence, the Cochrane Library, DARE, Medline, the Trip Database, SUMSearch and Índex das Revistas Médicas Portuguesas. We researched articles published between January 2005 and August 2015 in Portuguese, English and Spanish, using the MeSH terms “Hypertension”, “Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory” and “Cost‐Benefit Analysis” and the Portuguese search terms “Hipertensão”, “Monitorização Ambulatorial da Pressão Arterial” and “Análise Custo‐Benefício”. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation were attributed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine scale. Results Five hundred and twenty‐five articles were identified. We included five original studies and one clinical practice guideline. All of them state that ABPM is the most cost‐effective method. Two report better blood pressure control, and a Portuguese study revealed a saving of 23%. Conclusions The evidence shows that ABPM is cost‐effective, avoiding iatrogenic effects and reducing expenditure on treatment (grade of recommendation B). The included studies provide a solid basis, but further evidence of reproducibility is needed in research that is not based mainly on analytical models.
Costa, D., & Peixoto Lima, R. (2017, February 1). Custo‐efetividade da monitorização ambulatória da pressão arterial na abordagem da hipertensão arterial. Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia. Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repc.2016.09.007