The Norwegian office-, home-, and ambulatory blood pressure study (NOHA)

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in comparison with home and office blood pressure in every-day general practice. METHODS: In a multicenter survey sixty-two practitioners previously unfamiliar with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring performed a total of 1162 (mean 18 +/- 16; range 3-94) 24-h ambulatory- and home blood pressure measurements in normotensive subjects or patients with untreated or treated hypertension. RESULTS: In subjects with office blood pressure <140/90 mmHg average 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (Tenso 24 monitors) was 126/79 mmHg, home blood pressure (Tenso Plus semiautomatic sphygmomanometers) was 128/ 84 mmHg, and office blood pressure (standard sphygmomanometer) was 130/82 mmHg. Patients with office blood pressure > or = 140/90 mmHg had 24-h ambulatory blood pressure averaging 141/88 mmHg, home blood pressure 149/93 mmHg, and office blood pressure 157/95 mmHg. The difference between office-, home-, and ambulatory blood pressure increased with age. Expected differences were found between the three blood pressure modalities according to indication of examination (borderline -, "white-coat" -, and therapy refractory hypertension). Indices of hypertension related end-organ damage were positively correlated with home and ambulatory blood pressure but not with office blood pressure. Overall the performance of home- and ambulatory blood pressure in this general practice setting was similar to that seen by specialized blood pressure units. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the practical utility of home- and ambulatory blood pressure measurement in every-day general practice. Both methods are easy to introduce and the quality of blood pressure data obtained in every-day general practice are comparable to those obtained in hypertension clinics and trial centers.     

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring versus self-measurement of blood pressure at home: correlation with target organ damage

OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring and home blood pressure measurements predicted the presence of target organ damage and the risk of cardiovascular events better than did office blood pressure. METHODS: To compare these two methods in their correlation with organ damage, we consecutively included 325 treated (70%) or untreated hypertensives (125 women, mean age = 64.5 +/- 11.3) with office (three measurements at two consultations), home (three measurements morning and evening over 3 days) and 24-h ambulatory monitoring. Target organs were evaluated by ECG, echocardiography, carotid echography and detection of microalbuminuria. Data from 302 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Mean BP levels were 142/82 mmHg for office, 135.5/77 mmHg for home and 128/76 mmHg for 24-h monitoring (day = 130/78 mmHg; night = 118.5/67 mmHg). With a 135 mmHg cut-off, home and daytime blood pressure diverged in 20% of patients. Ambulatory and Home blood pressure were correlated with organ damage more closely than was office BP with a trend to better correlations with home BP. Using regression analysis, a 140 mmHg home systolic blood pressure corresponded to a 135 mmHg daytime systolic blood pressure; a 133 mmHg daytime ambulatory blood pressure and a 140 mmHg home blood pressure corresponded to the same organ damage cut-offs (Left ventricular mass index = 50 g/m, Cornell.QRS = 2440 mm/ms, carotid intima media thickness = 0.9 mm). Home-ambulatory differences were significantly associated with age and antihypertensive treatment. CONCLUSION: We showed that home blood pressure was at least as well correlated with target organ damage, as was the ambulatory blood pressure. Home-ambulatory correlation and their correlation with organ damage argue in favor of different cut-offs, that are approximately 5 mmHg higher for systolic home blood pressure.     

Predictors of controlled ambulatory blood pressure in treated hypertensive patients with uncontrolled office blood pressure.

Although some treated hypertensive patients have controlled 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) despite their uncontrolled office blood pressure (BP), the factors relating to the control of 24-h ABP remain unknown. We conducted a study to assess 24-h ABP and its association with other cardiovascular risk factors, including echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), in elderly hypertensive patients (n =41) with uncontrolled office BP (>140/90 mmHg) during long-term medication. Although a majority of the patients had isolated elevation of office systolic BP (SBP), there was no significant relationship between office SBP and 24-h SBP, and about half of the patients had controlled 24-h ABP (125+/-8/69+/-6 mmHg). Patients with controlled 24-h ABP (125+/-8/69+/-6 mmHg) had similar office BP (150+/-6/77+/-5 vs. 150+/-7/79+/-7 mmHg), but lower left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (123+/-34 vs. 156+/-34 g/m(2)) and body mass index (BMI) (24.4+/-2.1 vs. 26.4+/-3.6 kg/m(2)) compared with those with uncontrolled 24-h ABP (149+/-13/78+/-7 mmHg). Multivariate analysis showed that LVMI and BMI were independently associated with controlled 24-h ABP, and the control status of 24-h ABP was highly dependent on the presence of LVH and obesity. Therefore, absence of LVH and obesity may be useful for predicting the level of control of 24-h ABP in treated patients whose office BP is uncontrolled without ABP measurements.     

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure in a population of elderly men

OBJECTIVES: The principal aim was to study ambulatory and office blood pressure in a population of elderly men. We also wanted to describe the prevalence of hypertension and investigate the blood pressure control in treated elderly hypertensives. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of a population of elderly men, conducted between 1991 and 1995. SUBJECTS: Seventy-year-old men (n = 1060), participants of a cohort study that began in 1970. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure. RESULTS: Average 24 h blood pressure in the population was 133 +/- 16/75 +/- 8 mmHg, and daytime blood pressure 140 +/- 16/80 +/- 9 mmHg. Corresponding values in untreated subjects (n = 685) were 131 +/- 16/74 +/- 7 and 139 +/- 16/79 +/- 8, respectively. An office recording of 140/90 mmHg corresponded to an ambulatory pressure of 130/78 (24 h) and 137/83 mmHg (daytime) in untreated subjects. In subjects identified as normotensives according to office blood pressure (n = 270), the 95th percentiles of average 24 h and daytime blood pressures were 142/80 and 153/85 mmHg, respectively. The prevalence of hypertension, defined as office blood pressure greater than or = 140/90 mmHg, was 66%. Despite treatment, treated hypertensives (n = 285) showed higher office (157/89 vs. 127/76 mmHg) and 24 h ambulatory (138/78 vs. 122/71 mmHg) pressures than normotensives (P < 0.05). Fourteen per cent of the treated hypertensives had an office blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a basis for 24 h ambulatory blood pressure reference values in elderly men. The study confirms previous findings of a high prevalence of hypertension at older age. It also indicates that blood pressure is inadequately controlled in elderly treated hypertensives.     

Limited (6-h) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a valid replacement for the office blood pressure by trained nurse clinician in the diagnosis of hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a valid replacement for office blood pressure measurement done to American Heart Association criteria in diagnosing hypertension. METHODS: In all, 105 adults, who had been referred for limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, participated in the study. Limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring consisted of 6 h of blood pressure measurement while ambulatory at the Mayo Clinic, using a SpaceLabs 90207 (SpaceLabs Medical, Issaquah, Washington, USA) collecting six readings per hour for the period of observation. The study participants gave consent for three additional consecutive office blood pressure measurements, using a validated aneroid device, done to American Heart Association criteria, by a single hypertension nurse specialist. RESULTS: Mean systolic blood pressure by limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was 137.9+/-14.2 mmHg and for the nurse, 137.9+/-20.1 mmHg. Mean diastolic blood pressure by limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was 81.5+/-9.7 mmHg and for the nurse, 74.3+/-11.9 mmHg. The intermethod difference for systolic blood pressure was 0.03+/-12.5 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure, -7.2+/-8.0 mmHg. Using <140/90 as criteria factor, limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and the trained nurse agreed 77% of the time on whether the patient was hypertensive. This agreement increased to 81% if the participant's referral blood pressure was >or=140/90. CONCLUSIONS: Limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is an excellent replacement for office blood pressure, done to American Heart Association criteria, in diagnosing hypertension. This avoids issues of variability introduced by the observers, such as digit preference and bias, and increases reproducibility of blood pressure measurements. The appropriate normal value for limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is <140/90 mmHg compared with <135/85 mmHg used in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.     

Blood pressure measurements,blood pressure variability and endothelial function in renal transplant recipients

Background/Aims: Hypertension is an important cardiovascular risk factor in renal transplant recipients. Elevated blood pressure variability (BPV) during 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is associated with increased risk of target organ damage and cardiovascular events, independent of mean blood pressure levels. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between endothelial function, blood pressure levels obtained by various measurement methods, and BPV in renal transplant recipients.

Methods: In total, 73 hypertensive renal transplant recipients were included in the study. Office blood pressure measurements, central blood pressure measurements, home blood pressure measurements and 24-h ABPM were obtained from the subjects. BPV was calculated using the average real variability index. All patients underwent brachial flow-mediated vasodilatation tests. Predictive values of blood pressures obtained by different measurement techniques and BPV on endothelial functions were investigated.

Results: Endothelial dysfunction was present in 68.5% of the patients. No difference was found between the group with and without endothelial dysfunction with regard to office systolic or diastolic blood pressure, central blood pressure or home systolic blood pressure. In the group with endothelial dysfunction, 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure and night-time ambulatory systolic blood pressure were higher. In patients with endothelial dysfunction, the 24-h systolic, diastolic and mean BPV were all higher. There was also a negative correlation between the percentage of flow-mediated vasodilatation with 24-h mean and systolic BPV.

Conclusion: Patients with endothelial dysfunction had significantly higher ambulatory blood pressure values and higher BPV. There was a significant negative correlation between endothelial function and BPV.     

Blood pressure, endothelial function and circulating endothelin concentrations in liver transplant recipients

OBJECTIVES: To study candidates for liver transplant before and 6 weeks after transplant, and to elucidate the role of endothelial dysfunction and plasma endothelin concentrations in the development of hypertension. DESIGN PROSPECTIVE: follow-up study. SETTING: Institutional, outpatient. PATIENTS: and controls Fifteen patients (11 men, four women, mean age 46.7+/-13.2 years) with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and healthy volunteers of comparable age and sex. METHODS: We performed office blood pressure readings and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), measurements of endothelial-dependent vasodilatation using high-resolution ultrasound in the brachial artery at rest and during reactive hyperemia, and plasma endothelin-1 assays 3 months before and 6 weeks after the transplant. RESULTS: Office systolic and diastolic blood pressures increased significantly 6 weeks after liver transplantation (from 116.6+/-14.1 to 139.9+/-19.5 mmHg and from 68.6+/-9.5 to 84.1+/-9.8 mmHg, respectively; both P < 0.001). Hypertension based on office blood pressure readings increased from 6.7 to 40% (P < 0.05). Mean 24 h systolic blood pressure increased from 118.7+/-10.3 to 140.0+/-19.0 mmHg (P < 0.001), mean 24 h diastolic blood pressure increased from 86.0+/-7.7 to 104.8+/-13.9 mmHg (P < 0.001) and heart rate increased from 74.8+/-10.2 to 80.2+/-8.2 beats/min (P < 0.05). Brachial artery flow-mediated dilatation did not change throughout the study (before transplant: 4.2+/-4.0%; after transplant: 6.3+/-5.4%; NS) and did not differ from that in controls (5.2+/-3.8%). Plasma endothelin-1 was increased in patients with ESLD (15.3+/-2.6 pg/ml) compared with controls (5.6+/-0.4 pg/ ml; P < 0.001) and remained unchanged 6 weeks after liver transplantation (14.1+/-3.7 pg/ml). CONCLUSION: Our results show increased blood pressure with suppressed circadian blood pressure variability in liver graft recipients 6 weeks after transplant and no change in endothelial function and plasma endothelin concentrations. Therefore, the blood pressure increase documented in our study cannot be explained by endothelial dysfunction. Twenty-four hour ABPM should be performed routinely in patients who have undergone liver transplant.     

Comparison of different methods of blood pressure measurements

OBJECTIVE: To compare different methods of measuring and averaging blood pressure readings, and see how they affect classification of patients as normotensive or hypertensive. METHODS: The comparisons were made in up to 145 suitable patients in the first and last week of a 6-week surveillance. Ambulatory blood pressure measurements were taken from the nondominant arm, as the average of up to 78 measurements over 24 h (24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements), or 60 from 0700 h to 2200 h (daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurements), or 18 from 2200 h to 0700 h (night-time ambulatory blood pressure measurements). Office blood pressure measurements were taken by the outpatient department nurse in triplicate from both arms, and the averages were taken of the second and third of each triplicate. Home blood pressure measurements were taken in duplicate each morning and evening, entered by patients into diaries, and the available readings of up to four values per day were averaged for the first and sixth week. The classifications of normotensive versus hypertensive produced by criterion values of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements of 125/80 and 130/80 mmHg were compared with the classifications produced by the other measurements with a range of criterion values. RESULTS: The home blood pressure measurements and office blood pressure measurements of systolic values underestimated the corresponding 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements values by 3-9 average (SD 9-18) mmHg, and the diastolic values overestimated them by averages of 3-6 (SD 6-13) mmHg. Daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement systolic and diastolic values overestimated them by 2-4 (SD 2-4) mmHg and night-time ambulatory blood pressure measurement values underestimated them by 7-12 (SD 5-9) mmHg. In comparing the 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement classifications of hypertensives versus normotensives with those produced from the other types of measurements, it was easiest to detect criterion values for daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement that gave the best agreement and they appeared different for the different criterion values of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement. For the other types of measurement, the agreement was generally worse and it was harder to detect a best criterion value for agreement with either of the 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement classifications. A subsample of 63 patients identified as needing institution, maintenance or modification of antihypertensive treatment excluded about half of the patients classified as hypertensive by either 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement criterion. CONCLUSION: Limited agreement existed between different ways of classifying patients. The utility of the classifications depends on the purpose to which they are put.     

Assessment of patients with office hypertension by 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

To assess the discrepancy between casual (office) and home blood pressure readings in patients performing home blood pressure monitoring, we analyzed office, home, and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and heart rates in 19 patients in a prospective four-week study. After the month of study, the average difference between mean office and manual home blood pressures in this office hypertensive group was 30 +/- 17/20 +/- 6 mm Hg. The blood pressures taken in the office were substantially greater than the 24-hour average blood pressures and ambulatory blood pressures during work or while at home (awake). An analysis of the automatic monitor readings while in the doctor's office and at 15-minute intervals after leaving the office showed a progressive reduction in blood pressure and heart rate during the first hour after leaving the office. A mean 24-hour blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg was found in 13 (68%) patients. These data suggest that patients with office hypertension are usually normotensive but may have a persistent and recurrent pressor response in a medical care setting. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides confirmation of not only the office-home disparity, but also suggests that stress other than office visits fails to elicit a hypertensive response.     

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure in the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study showed that when antihypertensive treatment reduces diastolic blood pressure well below 90 mmHg, there can be a further reduction of cardiovascular events, particularly myocardial infarction, with no evidence of a J-shaped curve at lower pressures. Office measurement, however, gives no information about blood pressure outside the office. This paper describes a HOT substudy in which patients underwent both office measurement and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. METHODS: The mean age of the substudy population was 62 +/- 7 years. Substudy patients were treated for a median period of 2 years. All received the dihydropyridine calcium antagonist felodipine, while some also received an ACE-inhibitor, a beta-blocker or a diuretic. Average 24 h, day and night ambulatory blood pressure values were computed at baseline (n = 277) and during treatment (n = 347): 112 patients had been randomized to a target office diastolic blood pressure 相似文献   

Uncontrolled early morning blood pressure in medicated patients: the ACAMPA study. Analysis of the Control of Blood Pressure using Abulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

BACKGROUND: A blood pressure surge during the early morning may help to precipitate cardiovascular events. The objective of this study was thus to assess the blood pressure behaviour profile of early morning blood pressure in patients receiving antihypertensive treatment. DESIGN: The ACAMPA study is a multi-center, open, prospective, observational study that was carried out by 24 investigators in Spain. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety patients with essential hypertension who had been receiving the same antihypertensive treatment for at least 2 months were included in the study. Office blood pressure was measured before taking medication in the morning, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed. In addition to the automatic measurements, patients were instructed to take a blood pressure measurement after waking. RESULTS: The group analysis used 240 patients (mean age 54 years, including 101 males). Good clinical control (a blood pressure of less than 140/90 mmHg) was found in 53 cases (22%). The differences between the clinical and ambulatory readings during the period of activity were minimal in the group with good control (127 +/- 9/81 +/- 7 versus 127 +/- 10/81 +/- 7 mmHg; non-significant) but were significant in the group with poor control (155 +/- 16/93 +/- 10 versus 138 +/- 14/86 +/- 11 mmHg; P < 0.001). The blood pressure values were synchronized according to the moment of awakening. In almost half of the patients with good control, systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were higher than normal (135/85 mmHg); in those patients with poor control, this fraction rose to over 70%. The proportion of patients presenting high blood pressure values became even greater during the second hour after waking (62% in patients with good blood pressure control and 82% in those with poor control). CONCLUSIONS: In a large number of antihypertensive patients receiving treatment, blood pressure values remain high during the early-morning hours. At least half of those patients with an apparently well-controlled office blood pressure do not have their blood pressure under control for the period shortly after waking.     

Aldosterone excess and resistance to 24-h blood pressure control

BACKGROUND: Aldosterone excess has been reported to be a common cause of resistant hypertension. To what degree this represents true treatment resistance is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to compare the 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) levels in resistant hypertensive patients with or without hyperaldosteronism. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty-one patients with resistant hypertension were prospectively evaluated with an early-morning plasma renin activity (PRA), 24-h urinary aldosterone and sodium, and 24-h ABPM. Daytime, night-time, and 24-h blood pressure (BP) and nocturnal BP decline were determined. Hyperaldosteronism (H-Aldo) was defined as suppressed PRA (<1.0 ng/ml per h or <1.0 mug/l per h) and elevated 24-h urinary aldosterone excretion (>/= 12 mug/24-h or >/= 33.2 nmol/day) during ingestion of the patient's routine diet. RESULTS: In all patients, the mean office BP was 160.0 +/- 25.2/89.4 +/- 15.3 mmHg on an average of 4.2 medications. There was no difference in mean office BP between H-Aldo and normal aldosterone status (N-Aldo) patients. Daytime, night-time, and 24-h systolic and diastolic BP were significantly higher in H-Aldo compared to N-Aldo males. Daytime, night-time, and 24-h systolic BP were significantly higher in H-Aldo compared to N-Aldo females. Multivariate analysis indicated a significant interaction between age and aldosterone status such that the effects of aldosterone on ambulatory BP levels were more pronounced with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of similar office BP, ABPM levels were higher in resistant hypertensive patients with H-Aldo. These results suggest that high aldosterone levels impart increased cardiovascular risk not reflected by office BP measurements.     

Office blood pressure underestimates ambulatory blood pressure in peripheral arterial disease in comparison to healthy controls

Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) constitute a subgroup of high-risk hypertensives, but controlled studies on 24-h blood pressure (BP) and diurnal variation of BP are lacking. This study was performed in order to test the hypothesis that office BP (OBP) may underestimate 24-h BP in PAD patients in comparison to a matched control group. In all, 98 male patients (mean age 68 years) with a history of intermittent claudication and an ankle/brachial index less than 0.9, and 94 controls matched for age but without PAD or ischaemic heart disease performed 24-h recordings of ambulatory BP. A total of 59 patients had a history of hypertension and 69 were on treatment with BP-lowering drugs as compared to 17 and 23 of the control subjects, respectively. Office as well as 24-h systolic BP (SBP) were higher in patients as compared to controls (151 +/- 22 vs 140 +/- 20 mmHg, P < 0.001 and 142 +/- 14 vs 133 +/- 15 mmHg, P < 0.001, respectively), but did not differ with regard to diastolic BP. In an analysis of covariance with the continuous factors age, office SBP and the categorical factor antihypertensive treatment, 24-h SBP was higher in PAD patients compared to controls (P < 0.05). The difference between office and night SBP was lower in PAD patients with antihypertensive treatment compared to controls (P = 0.01). In conclusion, Male patients with PAD had higher systolic but not diastolic BP than age-matched control subjects. In PAD patients, 24-h SBP was higher than expected from OBP compared to controls. Night SBP was higher only in patients with antihypertensive treatment. In PAD patients, especially when on antihypertensive treatment, the severity of hypertension may be underestimated when based on OBP only.     

Effect on blood pressure of lumiracoxib versus ibuprofen in patients with osteoarthritis and controlled hypertension: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs vary in their impact on blood pressure and the effect of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily has not been studied previously. To examine whether lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily would result in lower 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure than ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily in osteoarthritis patients with controlled hypertension, a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted in 79 centres in nine countries. METHODS: Hypertensive osteoarthritis patients of 50 years at least whose office blood pressure was less than 140/90 mmHg on stable antihypertensive treatment were randomized to lumiracoxib (n = 394) 100 mg once daily or ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily (n = 393) and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at baseline and end of study. The primary outcome measure was a comparison of the change in 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure from baseline to week 4. Secondary analyses included other blood pressure-related endpoints and efficacy (pain) measurements. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, the 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure (least square mean) decreased in lumiracoxib-treated patients (-2.7 mmHg) and increased in ibuprofen-treated patients (+2.2 mmHg) at 4 weeks, estimated difference -5.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval -6.1 to -3.8) in favour of lumiracoxib. The 24-h mean diastolic ambulatory blood pressure changes were -1.5 mmHg (lumiracoxib), +0.5 mmHg (ibuprofen), difference -2.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval -2.7 to -1.3). Efficacy results were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily resulted in clinically significant lower blood pressure compared with ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily in osteoarthritis patients with well controlled hypertension.     

How good are standardized blood pressure recordings for diagnosing hypertension? A comparison between office and ambulatory blood pressure.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was compared with office blood pressure in 48 normotensive, 81 borderline hypertensives and 35 untreated hypertensives. The studied groups were chosen from a geographically defined population of middle-aged men in southern Sweden. The mean 24-h ambulatory blood pressure values for the normotensives, borderline hypertensives and untreated hypertensives were 120/76, 127/82 and 140/92 mmHg, respectively. The diurnal mean ambulatory blood pressure in the three groups was 126/80, 134/86 and 146/96 mmHg, respectively. The percentage of 24-h diastolic blood pressure peaks greater than or equal to 95 mmHg in the groups were 7%, 22% and 53%, respectively. The corresponding values greater than or equal to 90 mmHg were 16%, 38% and 69%, respectively. In the untreated hypertensive group, there was a more pronounced (P less than 0.05) systolic blood pressure increase during the morning hours (0600-1000 h) than in the normotensive and borderline hypertensive groups. Fourteen per cent of the hypertensives showed normal blood pressure values during 24-h blood pressure monitoring. Fifteen per cent of the borderline hypertensives were normotensive during ambulatory blood pressure monitoring despite repeated office diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 90 mmHg. The opposite (increased blood pressure during ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and at screening but normal office blood pressure) was seen in 14% of the borderline hypertensives. Normotensives were characterized by lower mean blood pressure values, fewer blood pressure peaks and a lower systolic blood pressure increase during the morning hours than hypertensives in this study of middle-aged men. The established way of diagnosing hypertension, borderline hypertension and normotension correlated well with the results of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.     

Left ventricular hypertrophy in treated hypertensive patients with good blood pressure control outside the clinic,but poor clinic blood pressure control

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in treated patients with good blood pressure (BP) control during multiple home BP (HBP) measurements and during 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), but with unsatisfactory BP control in the clinic. These patients were compared with treated hypertensives whose BP was well controlled under the three circumstances. METHODS: Seventy-two treated consecutive patients (group I, age 56 +/- 10 years) with clinic BP values > or = 140/90 mmHg, and a difference between clinic and self-measured HBP > 10 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and/or > 20 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP), underwent the following procedures: (1) clinic BP measurement; (2) routine diagnostic work-up; (3) HBP monitoring; (4) 24-h ABPM; (5) echocardiography. Thirty-five hypertensive patients with satisfactory BP control according to clinic (< 140/90 mmHg), HBP (< or = 131/82 mmHg) and ABP criteria (< or = 125/79 mmHg) were included as the control group (group II, age 55 +/- 9 years). RESULTS: In group I, 33 subjects out of the 72 (46%) with clinic BP > 140/90 mmHg had BP values controlled outside the clinic (23 according to HBP criteria and 22 according to ABP criteria). The prevalence of LVH (LV mass index > 134 g/m2 in men and > 110 g/m2 in women) was significantly higher in these patients (15.1 versus 2.8%, P < 0.01) than in group II (BP also controlled in the clinic), despite the fact that HBP and ABP were reduced to similar levels in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Our data provide evidence that treated hypertensive patients with good BP control at home or during ambulatory monitoring, but incomplete BP control in the clinic, have more pronounced cardiac alterations than patients with both clinic and out of the clinic BP control. This finding offers a new piece of information about the diagnostic value of BP measurement in the clinic to assess BP control during antihypertensive treatment.     

Determination of ambulatory blood pressure control in treated patients with controlled office blood pressures

Office blood pressure measurement is the standard for assessing blood pressure control. Many patients, however, take their antihypertensive medication in the morning, so they are likely to have their office blood pressure measured during the maximal antihypertensive effect. It is therefore unknown whether patients deemed by office blood pressure to be controlled do in fact have 24h blood pressure control. The objectives of this study were to determine blood pressure control, including blood pressure control while the patients were awake and during the first 6 hours after awakening, by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in treated hypertensive patients deemed by office blood pressure measurements to be controlled. A total of 103 patients on a stable antihypertensive regimen and deemed to be controlled in terms of office blood pressure values (mean office blood pressure <140/90mmHg) were enrolled. Patients were stratified by cardiovascular risk status and the number of antihypertensive medications that they were taking. Seventy-eight out of 103 participants successfully completed ABPM. The mean ambulatory blood pressure was greater than 135/85mmHg and 140/90mmHg while awake for 37% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26-48%) and 23% (95% CI 14-32%) of all patients respectively. Forty-eight per cent (95% CI 33-63%) of patients taking monotherapy versus 25% (95% CI 11-39%) of patients on multiple antihypertensive medications were uncontrolled (P=0.039) using 135/85mmHg as the reference value. Thirty-one per cent (95% CI, 17-44%) of patients on monotherapy versus 14% (95% CI 3-25%) of patients on multiple antihypertensive medication were uncontrolled (P=0.064) using 140/90mmHg instead. These results demonstrate that a high number of patients deemed by office blood pressure to be under control do not have adequate blood pressure control based on ABPM.     

Assessment of blood pressure control in hypertensive stroke survivors: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study

BACKGROUND: We compared the sensitivity of office blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring recordings in evaluating the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment and identified factors related to inadequate blood pressure control among hypertensive stroke survivors. METHODS: Office blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring measurements were performed at 120+/-30 days after ictus in 187 first-ever consecutive hypertensive stroke survivors who were receiving blood pressure-lowering medications according to international guidelines. Handicap was assessed by the modified Rankin Scale. Blood pressure was regarded as controlled if office and daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were <140/90 and <135/85 mmHg, respectively. Patients were subclassified according to the degree of their nocturnal systolic blood pressure fall [(mean daytime values-mean night-time values)100/mean daytime values] as dippers (>or=10%), nondippers (>or=0% and <10%) and reverse dippers (<0%). RESULTS: Effective blood pressure control was documented in significantly (P<0.001) fewer patients using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (32.1%) than those using office recordings (43.3%), whereas in 16% of the study population a masked lack of per-treatment blood pressure control (elevated ambulatory blood pressure in the presence of normal office blood pressure levels) was identified. The distribution of dipping patterns differed significantly (P=0.01) between controlled hypertensive individuals (normal office and ambulatory measurements) and patients with isolated ambulatory hypertension (dippers: 31.3 vs. 10.0%; nondippers:56.9 vs. 53.3%; reverse dippers: 11.8 vs. 36.7%). Logistic regression analysis revealed diabetes mellitus and functional independency (modified Rankin Scale score<2) as independent predictors of inadequate blood pressure control. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring detects a substantial number of treated hypertensive stroke survivors with a masked lack of per-treatment blood pressure control, who present a higher prevalence of abnormal circadian blood pressure patterns (reverse dipping). Diabetes mellitus and poststroke functional independency are the main factors contributing to inadequate blood pressure control.     

Home blood pressure in poorly controlled hypertension: relationship with ambulatory blood pressure and organ damage

OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess whether home blood pressure measurement is a reliable alternative to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the evaluation of treated patients with inadequate blood pressure control at the clinic; and (2) to evaluate the relationship between home blood pressure and several target-organ damage markers. BASIC METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed in 225 treated hypertensive patients with persistently high blood pressure values at the clinic (systolic blood pressure 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure 90 mmHg). All study participants underwent clinic blood pressure measurement, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure monitoring. A subgroup of patients underwent the following procedures: carotid echography (n=74), microalbuminuria determination (n=88) and echocardiography (n=43). We defined out-of-clinic normotension as an average ambulatory or home blood pressure less than 135 mmHg (systolic) and 85 mmHg (diastolic). MAIN RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of the home blood pressure method for predicting out-of-clinic normotension (with the ambulatory method used as reference), expressed as percentages, were 50, 87, 64 and 79%, respectively. Systolic home blood pressure correlated significantly with left ventricular mass (r=0.33, P<0.05) and microalbuminuria (r=0.24, P<0.05). Similar correlation coefficients were found for systolic ambulatory blood pressure (r=0.32, P<0.05 and r=0.24, P<0.05, respectively). Clinic blood pressure did not correlate with either left ventricular mass or microalbuminuria (r=0.19, P=0.09 and r=0.19, P=0.24, respectively). Diastolic home blood pressure, but not ambulatory blood pressure, correlated negatively with mean carotid intima-media thickness (r=-0.27, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, in patients with poorly controlled hypertension at the clinic, home blood pressure represents a complementary test rather than an alternative to ambulatory blood pressure, and correlates with several target-organ damage markers.     

Role of blood pressure monitoring in non-pharmacological management of hypertension

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure (BP) measurement appear to be useful in the assessment of the effects of non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension because they can detect small changes in BP without observer bias. We studied the effects of various lifestyle modifications using ABPM and home BP measurement in Japanese patients with hypertension. Weight reduction by a hypocaloric diet (average 4 kg) was associated with decreases in 24-h BP (10/4 mmHg) as well as casual BP (9/6 mmHg). The reductions in daytime and night-time BPs were comparable. The effects of daily walking without weight loss on office, home, and 24-h BPs were 2-3/1-2 mmHg. The changes in home and 24-h BPs were more significant than those in office BP. A low-salt diet (25 mmol/day versus 250 mmol/day) decreased 24-h BP by 9/4 mmHg. This hypotensive effect was observed throughout the day. Potassium supplementation (64 mmol/day) decreased office, home and 24-h BPs by 3-4/1-2 mmHg. The changes in home and 24-h BPs were highly significant compared with office BP. Supplementation of magnesium (20 mmol/day) also reduced those BPs significantly. However, the effects of calcium supplementation (25 mmol/day) were small (1-2/1 mmHg) and were significant only for home BP. Alcohol restriction for 4 weeks decreased daytime BP by 3/2 mmHg but increased night-time BP by 4/2 mmHg. Average 24-h BP did not change. Smoking cessation lowered daytime BP without affecting night-time BP. Monitoring of 24-h BP and home BP can detect small changes in BP produced by lifestyle modifications. Ambulatory BP monitoring is particularly suitable in the assessment of changes in lifestyle affecting the circadian pattern of BP such as alcohol consumption and smoking.