Sex differences in risk factor control of treated hypertensives: A national primary healthcare-based study in Sweden

29Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

To evaluate potential sex differences, this study aimed to investigate blood pressure and lipid control and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease in treated hypertensive (tHT) patients from primary healthcare. This cross-sectional survey of tHT patients was carried out between 2002 and 2005 by 264 primary care physicians from Sweden who consecutively recruited 6537 tHT patients (48% men and 52% women) from medical records. tHT men more often reached the treatment goal for systolic/diastolic blood pressure, less than 140/90 mmHg, than tHT women (30 vs. 26%, P < 0.01). Men had lower systolic blood pressure than women, however, women had lower diastolic blood pressure and higher pulse pressure. More tHT women had total cholesterol ≥ 5.0 mmol/l than corresponding men (75 vs. 64% P < 0.001). Men more often had diabetes (25 vs. 20% P < 0.001), left ventricular hypertrophy (20 vs. 16% P < 0.001), and microalbuminuria (24 vs. 16% P < 0.001). Women were more often treated with diuretics (64 vs. 48%) and β-receptor blockers (54 vs. 51%), and men more often treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (27 vs. 18%), calcium channel blockers (34 vs. 26%), and lipid-lowering drugs (34 vs. 29%). A need still exists for more intensified treatment of elevated blood pressure and hypercholesterolemia, especially in women. In hypertensives of both sexes, smoking and other risk factors also need to be addressed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. © 2008, European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Journath, G., Hellénius, M. L., Petersson, U., Theobald, H., & Nilsson, P. M. (2008). Sex differences in risk factor control of treated hypertensives: A national primary healthcare-based study in Sweden. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 15(3), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJR.0b013e3282f37a45

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free