Blood pressure control in a hypertension hospital clinic.

OBJECTIVES: First, to evaluate the prevalence of clinic blood pressure (BP) control (BP < or = 140/90 mm Hg) in a representative sample of treated hypertensive patients followed in our hypertension clinic. Second, to assess in a subgroup of these patients: (a) the proportion of BP control with both clinic blood pressure (CBP < or =140/90 mm Hg) and daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) (< or =132/85 mm Hg) criteria, and (b) the prevalence of echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (left ventricular mass index, LVMI>125 g/m2 in men and >110 g/m2 in women). DESIGN AND METHODS: Seven hundred consecutive hypertensive patients who attended our hypertension centre clinic during a period of 6 months and who had regularly been followed up by the same medical team were included in the study. BP was taken in the clinic by a doctor using a mercury sphygmomanometer with the participants seated. Seventy-four patients with similar demographic and clinical characteristics to the entire population of participants underwent complete echocardiographic examination and 24 h ABP monitoring. RESULTS: During follow-up, 352 of the treated patients had clinic BP < or =140/90 mm Hg, 198< or =160/95 mm Hg and 150>160/95 mm Hg, indicating that BP control was satisfactory in 50.3%, borderline in 28.3% and unsatisfactory in 21.4% of the cases. In the subgroup of 74 patients, the proportion of individuals with satisfactory clinic BP control (CBP< or =140/90 mm Hg) was higher (50.0 versus 33.6%) than with satisfactory ABP control (daytime ABP values < or =132/85 mm Hg). LVH was found in 21 of the 74 patients (28.3%): 12 of them had unsatisfactory CBP control and 19 had unsatisfactory ABP control. LVMI did not correlate with CBP values but only with ABP values (mean 24 h systolic r = 0.47, diastolic r = 0.40, P<0.001; mean daytime systolic r = 0.45, mean daytime diastolic r = 0.39, P<0.001; mean night-time systolic r = 0.38, mean night-time diastolic r = 0.38, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that hypertensive patients managed in a hypertension centre clinic have satisfactory CBP control in 50% of cases, but this rate seems to over-estimate the effective BP control during daily life. A large fraction of patients show persistence of LVH and this evidence of organ damage almost entirely concerns individuals with poor ABP control.     

Prevalence of target organ damage in treated hypertensive patients: different impact of clinic and ambulatory blood pressure control

OBJECTIVES: First, to evaluate the prevalence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, LV concentric remodelling and microalbuminuria in a selected sample of treated hypertensive patients with effective and prolonged clinic blood pressure (BP) control (BP < 140/90 mmHg). Second, to compare the prevalence of these markers of organ damage in patients with and without ambulatory BP (ABP) control, defined as average daytime BP < 132/85 mmHg). DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifty-eight consecutive hypertensive patients who attended our hypertension outpatient clinic over a period of 3 months and were regularly followed up by the same medical team were included in the study. Obesity, diabetes mellitus, history or signs of cardiovascular or renal complications and major noncardiovascular diseases were the exclusion criteria from the study. Each patient underwent 24 h ABP monitoring, echocardiography and 24 h urine collection for albumin measurement. RESULTS: The prevalence of LV hypertrophy (LV mass index > 125 g/m2 in both sexes), LV concentric remodelling (relative wall thickness > 0.45) and microalbuminuria (urinary albumin excretion < 300 mg/ 24 h) in this selected group of patients (32 men, 26 women; mean age 53 +/- 9 years; mean clinic BP 122 +/- 9/ 78 +/- 6 mmHg) was markedly low (6.9, 8.6 and 5.1%, respectively). The 26 patients with effective ABP control (group I) were similar to the 32 patients without effective ABP control (group II) in age, gender, body surface area, clinic BP, smoking habit, glucose, cholesterol and creatinine plasma levels. Prevalence of LV hypertrophy, LV concentric remodelling and microalbuminuria was lower in group I than in group II (0 versus 12.9% P< 0.01, 7.7 versus 9.4% NS, 3.8 versus 6.2% NS, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that nonobese, nondiabetic hypertensive patients with an effective clinic BP control have a very low prevalence of target organ damage and that LVH is present only in individuals with insufficient ABP control.     

A comparison of blood pressure control in a hypertension hospital clinic between 1997 and 2000

AIMS: (1) To evaluate the prevalence of clinic blood pressure (BP) control in a large sample of treated hypertensives followed in our hypertension clinic during the year 2000, and to compare it with our 1997 data. (2) To investigate the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) according to different levels of BP control. METHODS AND RESULTS: One thousand consecutive hypertensive patients who attended our hypertension hospital clinic in a period of 7 months during the year 2000 and who had regularly been followed by the same medical team were included in the study. LVH was assessed using two different electrocardiographic criteria (Sokolow-Lyon and Cornell). This population had similar clinical characteristics of a cohort including 700 patients seen at our centre during 1997 in which BP control rate was 34% (Cuspidi et al., J Hypertens 1999; 17: 835-41). During follow-up, 441 of the treated patients had clinic BP < 140/90 mmHg, 283 < 150/95 mmHg and 276 > or = 150/95 mmHg, indicating that BP control was satisfactory in 44.1%, borderline in 28.3% and unsatisfactory in 27.6% of the cases. Thirty-five patients (3.6%) had LVH according to Cornell criteria and 25 (2.6%) according to Sokolow criteria. A significantly lower prevalence of LVH was detected in patients with optimal BP control (< 130/ 85 mmHg) compared to those with unsatisfactory BP (2.3% vs 9.4%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that: (1) hypertensive patients in a hypertension clinic have satisfactory BP control in 44.1% of cases, indicating a significant improvement of BP control in this clinical setting during the last 3 years; (2) prevalence of LVH is significantly related to BP control.     

Impact of blood pressure control on prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy in treated hypertensive patients

AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate (1) the prevalence and patterns of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and (2) the impact of blood pressure (BP) control, assessed by clinical and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) criteria on the persistence of LVH in a representative sample of treated patients attending our Hypertension Clinic. METHODS: One hundred consecutive essential hypertensives (61 m/39 f, age 56+/- 9 years) regularly followed up by the same medical team (average period 52 months, 12-156 months) were included in the study and underwent 24-hour ABPM and complete echocardiographic examination. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of the 100 patients were found to have LVH [left ventricular mass index (LVMI) >125 g/m(2) in men and >110 g/m(2) in women]; LVH was eccentric in 20 patients and concentric in the remaining 8. LVMI did not correlate with clinical BP values but only with ABPM values (mean 24 h systolic r = 0.34, p <0.01; diastolic r = 0.37, p <0.01). The prevalence of LVH in patients controlled according to clinical BP criteria (n = 43, BP <140/90 mm Hg) was 19%, in patients controlled according to ABPM criteria (n = 30, BP during daytime <132/85 mm Hg) 17%, and in those controlled with both criteria (n = 16) 6% (p <0. 01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the eccentric type of LVH is the prevalent pattern in chronically treated patients. The persistence of LVH is significantly dependent on BP levels achieved during treatment; indeed the prevalence of LVH is very low in patients with an optimal BP control, whereas it is elevated (37%) in uncontrolled patients.     

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.     

Home blood pressure measurement may lead to less strict control of office blood pressure

Home blood pressure (HBP) measurement is useful for detecting morning hypertension, white coat as well as masked hypertension. However, target BP levels based on HBP remain unknown. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between HBP measurement and office BP control status in hypertensive patients. Subjects were a total of 720 hypertensive outpatients (mean age: 64 +/- 11 years; females: 57%). Two-time averaged office BP in 2005 were categorized as excellent (<130/85 mmHg), good (> or =130/85 and <140/90 mmHg), or poor (>140/90 mmHg) control. In all patients, 37% were classified as excellent, 37% as good, and 26% as poor control. A total of 393 (55%) patients regularly measured HBP (HBP group). More women belonged to the HBP group (62 vs. 52%, p < 0.05). The HBP group also showed lower body mass index (23.8 +/- 3.3 vs. 24.7 +/- 3.4 kg/m(2), p < 0.01), lower triglyceride (136 +/- 78 vs. 158 +/- 89 mg/dl, p < 0.01), and lower blood glucose (104 +/- 20 vs. 118 +/- 42 mg/dl, p < 0.01). HBP group showed a significantly higher prevalence of poor BP control (33 vs. 23%, p <0.01) and higher office SBP (134.5 +/- 14.5 vs. 131.3 +/- 11.7 mmHg, p < 0.01) than those who did not measure HBP (non-HBP). In a multivariate analysis for office SBP, age (partial r = 0.21, p < 0.05) and HBP measurement (partial r = 0.12, p < 0.05) were detected as significant independent variables. These results suggest that HBP measurement may lead to less strict office BP control unless the target HBP levels are clearly indicated. Until the recommendations or target HBP levels are available, we should make an effort to obtain goal office BP.     

Self-measured versus ambulatory blood pressure in the diagnosis of hypertension

OBJECTIVE: We examined to what extent self-measurement of blood pressure at home (HBP) can be an alternative to ambulatory monitoring (ABP) to diagnose white-coat hypertension. METHODS: In 247 untreated patients, we compared the white-coat effects obtained by HBP and ABP. The thresholds to diagnose hypertension were > or = 140/> or = 90 mmHg for conventional blood pressure (CBP) and > or = 135/> or = 85 mmHg for daytime ABP and HBP. RESULTS: Mean systolic/diastolic CBP, HBP and ABP were 155.4/100.0, 143.1/91.5 and 148.1/95.0 mmHg, respectively. The white-coat effect was 5.0/3.5 mmHg larger on HBP compared with ABP (12.3/8.6 versus 7.2/5.0 mmHg; P < 0.001). The correlation coefficients between the white-coat effects based on HBP and ABP were 0.74 systolic and 0.60 diastolic (P < 0.001). With ABP as a reference, the specificity of HBP to detect white-coat hypertension was 88.6%, and the sensitivity was 68.4%. CONCLUSION: Our findings are in line with the recommendations of the ASH Ad Hoc Panel that recommends HBP for screening while ABP has a better prognostic accuracy.     

Ambulatory monitoring predicts development of drug-treated hypertension in subjects with high normal blood pressure

BACKGROUND: High normal blood pressure (HNBP), i.e. blood pressure (BP) > or = 130/85 mmHg and <140/90 mmHg, is an important predictor of progression to established hypertension. DESIGN: The purpose of this retrospective study was the evaluation of the predictive value of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for the development of drug-treated hypertension in subjects with HNBP and other risk factors. METHODS: We studied 127 subjects (69 M, 58 F, age 50 +/- 14 years): 59 subjects had normal BP (NBP: < 130/85 mmHg), 68 subjects had systolic and/or diastolic HNBP. All the subjects underwent ABPM. There were 21/68 (30.9%) subjects in the HNBP group vs. 1/59 (1.7%) in the NBP group with an elevated (>135/85 mmHg) daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) (p < 0.01). RESULTS: After an average follow-up of 103 +/- 28 months, 27 subjects (39.7%) in the HNBP group and 4 subjects (6.8%) in the NBP group developed drug-treated hypertension (p < 0.01). An elevated daytime ABP correctly predicted development of drug-treated hypertension in 17/21 subjects (81%) of the HNBP group and in the only subject of the NBP group. Development of drug-treated hypertension was associated with higher office and ambulatory BP (p < 0.01) and pulse pressures (p < 0.05), longer follow-up (p < 0.05) and higher prevalence of hypercholesterolaemia and smoking (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that ABPM correctly predicts development of drug-treated hypertension in most subjects who were identified early as having a daytime mean ABP >135/85 mmHg. ABPM appears to be a useful clinical tool in the early diagnosis of hypertension in subjects with metabolic risk factors and smoking.     

Accuracy of telemedical home blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis of hypertension

This study was conducted to compare the accuracy of clinic blood pressure (CBP) and telemedical home blood pressure (HBP) measurement in the diagnosis of hypertension in primary care. The study subjects were 411 patients with average CBP > or =140 mmHg systolic or > or =90 mmHg diastolic, who performed telemedical HBP measurement (5 days, four times daily) and ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring in random order. Main outcome measure was the agreement of CBP and HBP with daytime ABP. CBP was much higher than daytime ABP and average HBP (P<0.001) with no difference between the latter two. The correlation between CBP and ABP was weak (systolic: r=0.499, diastolic: r=0.543), whereas strong correlations existed between HBP and ABP (systolic: r=0.847, diastolic: r=0.812). A progressive improvement in the strength of the linear regression between average HBP of single days and ABP was obtained from day 1 to day 4, with no further benefit obtained on the fifth day. The HBP readings taken at noon and in the afternoon showed significantly stronger correlations with ABP than the blood pressures measured in the morning and in the evening. In conclusion, the accuracy of telemedical HBP measurement was substantially better than that of CBP in the diagnosis of hypertension in primary care. HBP most accurately reflected ABP on the fourth day of monitoring, and the readings at noon and in the afternoon seemed to be most accurate.     

Masked Hypertension Assessed by Ambulatory Blood Pressure Versus Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: Is It the Same Phenomenon?

BACKGROUND: Masked hypertension is defined as normal clinic blood pressure (CBP) and elevated out-of-clinic blood pressure assessed using either self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) by the patients at home (HBP) or ambulatory BP (ABP) monitoring. This study investigated the level of agreement between ABP and HBP in the diagnosis of masked hypertension. METHODS: Participants referred to an outpatient hypertension clinic had measurements of CBP (two visits), HBP (4 days), and ABP (24 h). The diagnosis of masked hypertension based on HBP (CBP <140/90 mm Hg and HBP > or =135/85) versus ABP (CBP <140/90 and awake ABP > or =135/85) was compared. RESULTS: A total of 438 subjects were included (mean age +/- SD, 51.5 +/- 11.6 years; 59% men and 41% women, 34% treated and 66% untreated). Similar proportions of subjects with masked hypertension were diagnosed by ABP (14.2%) and HBP (11.9%). In both treated and untreated subjects, the masked hypertension phenomenon was as common as the white coat phenomenon. Among 132 subjects with normal CBP, there was disagreement in the diagnosis of masked hypertension between the HBP and the ABP method in 23% of subjects for systolic and 30% for diastolic BP (kappa 0.56). When a 5-mm Hg gray zone for uncertain diagnosis was applied to the diagnostic threshold, the disagreement was reduced to 9% and 6% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar proportions of subjects with masked hypertension are detected by ABP and HBP monitoring. Although disagreement in the diagnosis between the two methods is not uncommon, in the majority of these cases the deviation of the diagnostic BP above the threshold in not clinically important. Both ABP and HBP monitoring appear to be appropriate methods for the detection of masked hypertension.     

Isolated ambulatory hypertension and changes in target organ damage in treated hypertensive patients

Isolated ambulatory hypertension is a condition characterized by elevated ambulatory but normal clinic blood pressure (BP), and has been reported to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk in untreated subjects. However, little is known about the relationship between this condition and intermediate end points such as target organ damage (TOD) in treated hypertensives. We investigated the impact of isolated ambulatory hypertension on left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and microalbuminuria (MA) in a selected sample of treated nondiabetic hypertensives with effective and prolonged clinic BP control (BP<140/90 mmHg). Clinic BP measurements, routine diagnostic procedures, echocardiography and 24-h urine collection for MA, were undertaken in 80 patients (mean age 53+/-8 years) with essential hypertension attending our hospital outpatient centre at baseline and after an average follow-up of 30 months. At follow-up evaluation BP status was assessed by self-measurement of BP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). At the follow-up visit, 51 out of 80 patients (63.7%) reached a BP control according to ABP (average daytime BP<132/85 mmHg) criteria (group I) whereas the remaining 29 did not (group II); home BP was controlled (BP<135/85 mmHg) in all members of group I and in 86% of group II. In the overall study population, mean Sokolow voltage, LV mass index (LVMI) and urinary albumin excretion (UAE) decreased compared to baseline from 24.1+/-5.0 to 18.9+/-5.1 mm (P<0.05), 115.6+/-24.1 to 97.7+/-21.6 g/m(2) (P<0.01), 11.8+/-23.7 to 5.8+/-14.9 mg/24 h (P<0.05), respectively. The prevalence of ECG LVH, altered LV patterns and MA fell from 7.5 to 2.5% (P=NS), from 45 to 25 (P<0.01) and from 13.7 to 5.1% (P<0.05), respectively. However, when data were analysed separately for the two groups a significant decrease of echo LVH and MA was found only in patients with controlled ABP. LVMI and MA decreased from 117.1+/-23.1 to 95.9+/-22.1 g/m(2) (P<0.01) and 12.8+/-24.7 to 4.1+/-5.7 mg/24 h (P<0.05) in group I, and from 114.1+/-24.8 to 102.3+/-20.3 (P=NS) and 11.9+/-22.1 to 6.3+/-18.1 mg/24 h (P=NS) in group II. In conclusion, in the present study isolated ambulatory hypertension in treated patients is associated with a lack of regression in cardiac and extracardiac TOD, suggesting that a tight BP control throughout the 24 h plays a key role in lowering hypertension-induced structural and functional alterations at cardiac and renal level.     

Relationship between joint national committee-VI classification of hypertension and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with hypertension diagnosed by casual blood pressure

Background: White-coat hypertension has been diagnosed arbitrarily based on different criteria. In 1997, the Joint National Committee-VI (JNC-VI) reported a new classification of hypertension and strongly emphasized the importance of ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring. The report pronounced normal ABP values for the first time. Hypothesis: The study's aim was to clarify the relationship between casual blood pressure (BP) and ABP of patients with essential hypertension in each stage of JNC-VI classification, and the prevalence of white-coat hypertension diagnosed by using JNC-VI normal ABP criteria. Methods: Ambulatory blood pressure was monitored noninvasively in 232 patients with essential hypertension whose casual BP was ≥ 140/90 mmHg. The patients were classified according to JNC-VI classification, and their casual BP was compared with ABP. The criterion of white-coat hypertension was defined as casual BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg with normal ABP according to JNC-VI criteria (< 135/85 during daytime and < 120/75 during nighttime). Results: Mean ABP increased as the stage advanced, and the differences between casual BP and ABP also increased. There were considerable overlaps in the distribution of ABP among stages. The prevalence of white-coat hypertension was 13% overall: 30% of the patients with isolated systolic hypertension, 19% of those in stage 1,10% in stage 2, and 4% in stage 3. Conclusions: Classification of hypertension based on casual BP may not always correspond in severity to that based on ABP. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring recommended by JNC-VI is very useful for the evaluation of hypertension to differentiate white-coat hypertension from true hypertension.     

Diagnosis of hypertension using home or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: comparison with the conventional strategy based on repeated clinic blood pressure measurements

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether measurement of blood pressure at home (HBP) and by ambulatory monitoring (ABP) are reliable alternatives to the traditional strategy for the diagnosis of hypertension based on blood pressure measurement on repeated clinic visits (CBP). DESIGN: Comparison of the diagnosis of hypertension based on HBP (on six workdays) or ABP monitoring (two occasions) with that based on CBP (five visits within 3 months). SETTING: Outpatient hypertension clinic. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 133 individuals with a diastolic CBP of 90-115 mmHg on the initial visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CBP, HBP and ABP values, and the diagnosis of hypertension. RESULTS: Hypertension was diagnosed in 70, 63 and 56% of individuals using the CBP, ABP and HBP methods respectively (P = 0.04). Agreement in the diagnosis of hypertension between all three methods was found in 59% of individuals. Disagreement between CBP and ABP was found in 27%, between CBP and HBP in 29% and between ABP and HBP in 26% of individuals. The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of ABP to diagnose hypertension correctly were 76, 67, 85 and 53% respectively; for HBP the respective values were 69, 77, 88 and 51%. The same parameters for HBP compared with ABP in the detection of white-coat hypertension were 61, 79, 48 and 86% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Indiscriminate use of HBP or ABP monitoring in the evaluation of all individuals with high blood pressure will probably result in confusion and therefore should be discouraged. However, in the detection of white-coat hypertension, HBP appears to be useful as a screening test, which, if positive, requires confirmation with ABP monitoring.     

Sequential follow-up clinic and ambulatory blood pressure evaluation in a low risk population of white-coat hypertensive patients and in normotensives

BACKGROUND: In subjects with white-coat hypertension (WCH) it is unclear how ambulatory blood pressure (ABPM) progresses over time and whether they exhibit an increased cardiovascular risk. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the transition of clinic and ABPM values in 39 clinic and ABPM normotensive subjects (NT) (clinic BP<140/90 mmHg and awake BP<130/85 mmHg, ages 43.4+/-2.6 y) and in 79 untreated subjects (47.2+/-2.4 y) with WCH (clinic BP>140/90, awake ABP<130/85 mmHg) with no other major cardiovascular risk factors. Ambulatory blood pressure was evaluated at baseline and on at least two further occasions during follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline all subjects were untreated and groups did not differ on values of metabolic parameters, BMI, left ventricular mass index, and ABPM values. Subjects were revaluated for ABPM half way through and at the end of follow-up, 35+/-3 and 86+/-4 months in NT and 49+/-4 and 90+/-4 months in WCH. Thirty-six WCH were on antihypertensive treatment (AH) after baseline until the end of follow-up (WCH-tr), whereas 43 WCH (WCH-untr) were free from AH throughout the study. In a similar way all groups showed a significant (p<0.01) progressive increase in 24-h ABPM systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline throughout the follow-up in NT (+4.9/2.1+/-0.8/0.9 mmHg), average annual increase of 0.72/0.37 mmHg/y, in WCH-tr (+ 5.0/1.2+/-1.1/1.5 mmHg), average annual increase of 0.66/0.31 mmHg/y and in WCH-untr (+5.4/3.2+/-0.9/1.1 mmHg), average annual increase of 0.74/0.39 mmHg/y. During the follow-up office SBP/DBP (mmHg) significantly rose in NT (+5.7/3.9) but was reduced in WCH-tr (-7.8/5.2) and in WCH-untr (-4.7/1.1). Development of ambulatory hypertension (daytime BP >130 and/or >85 mmHg) occurred in 15.4% (6/39) of NT, in 22.7% (8/36) of WCH-tr and in 26.1% (11/43) of WCH-untr (NS). First cardiovascular events recorded were three in subjects with WCH and none in NT. CONCLUSIONS: After 7.4 years of follow-up, both the progressive increase in ABPM and the rate of transition to ambulatory hypertension in subjects with WCH (either treated or untreated), who were selected under strict criteria were similar to that of normotensive subjects. Also there was no evidence that WCH exhibited a clear higher risk of development cardiovascular events.     

Diagnostic accuracy of home vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in untreated and treated hypertension

Several studies with relatively small size and different design and end points have investigated the diagnostic ability of home blood pressure (HBP). This study investigated the usefulness of HBP compared with ambulatory monitoring (ABP) in diagnosing sustained hypertension, white coat phenomenon (WCP) and masked hypertension (MH) in a large sample of untreated and treated subjects using a blood pressure (BP) measurement protocol according to the current guidelines. A total of 613 subjects attending a hypertension clinic (mean age 53±12.4 (s.d.) years, men 57%, untreated 59%) had measurements of clinic BP (three visits, triplicate measurements per visit), HBP (6 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements) and awake ABP (20-min intervals) within 6 weeks. Sustained hypertension was diagnosed in 50% of the participants by ABP and HBP (agreement 89%, κ=0.79), WCP in 14 and 15%, respectively (agreement 89%, κ=0.56) and MH in 16% and 15% (agreement 88%, κ=0.52). Only 4% of the subjects (27/613) showed clinically significant diagnostic disagreement with BP deviation >5?mm?Hg above the diagnostic threshold (for HBP or ABP). By taking ABP as reference, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of HBP in detecting sustained hypertension were 90, 89, 89 and 90%, respectively, WCP 61, 94, 64 and 94% and MH 60, 93, 60 and 93%. Similar diagnostic agreement was found in untreated and treated subjects. HBP appears to be a reliable alternative to ABP in the diagnosis of hypertension and the detection of WCP and MH in both untreated and treated subjects.     

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.     

Estimation of base blood pressure by using a new device in the outpatient clinic.

Direct measurement of intra-arterial blood pressure (BP) for 24-h provides approximately 100,000 values that vary enormously, but each (BPi) can be expressed by the equation BPi = BP0 + DeltaBPi (BP0, base BP; DeltaBPi, BP increment, i=1, 2, ..., 100 x 10(3)). About 20% of outpatients with hypertension exhibit white-coat hypertension (WCH). In such patients, DeltaBPc (i = c; c, time at the clinic) is surmised to be large. A method for explaining the physiological factors in DeltaBPc and the estimation of base BP in the outpatient clinic is important. This study addresses this issue. A total of 293 subjects were divided into four groups: 1) WCH group, 45 individuals (office BP > or = 140/90 mmHg and 24-h indirect BP < 125/80 mmHg); 2) normotensive (NT) group, 84 controls matched for age and sex; 3) WHO-I group, 95 hypertensive patients with WHO stage I (office BP > or = 140/90 mmHg and 24-h BP > or = 125/80 mmHg); and 4) WHO-II group, 69 hypertensive patients with WHO stage II. Their BPc and heart rate (HR; HRc, clinic HR) values were measured by a BP-ECG monitoring device in the outpatient clinic. Power-spectral analysis was used to obtain the ratio between the low-frequency component (LF) and high-frequency component (HF) of ECG-RR variability (LF/HF = LH). Twenty-four-hour indirect BP (and BP0) and base HR (HR0) were measured by a portable device (TM2425) at 30-min intervals. Then, DeltaBPc (= BPc - BP0) was estimated by performing linear multivariate analysis applying the model equation DeltaBPc = (BPc -alphaLH)(1-betaHR0/HRc) + epsilon to the above variables (alpha and beta, constant values; epsilon, error). This model equation made it possible to estimate BP0 (and DeltaBPc) with a high coefficient of correlation (r > or = 0.85, mean of error less than 0.82 +/- 5.9 mmHg). The predictive accuracy for discrimination between WCH and sustained hypertension (WHO-I and WHO-II groups) by this equation was 88%. The new DeltaBP-estimation device (BP-ECG monitor) enabled us to infer BP0 and is therefore useful in estimating WCH in the outpatient clinic.     

Blood pressure control during telemonitoring of home blood pressure. A randomized controlled trial during 6 months

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment based on telemonitoring of home blood pressure (BP) and conventional monitoring of office BP. METHODS: Hypertensive patients (n = 236) participated in a randomized, controlled study. In the intervention group, antihypertensive treatment was based on home BP monitoring. BP readings were registered by a PDA and automatically transmitted to a server, by which the patient and doctor could communicate. In the control group, patients received usual care with office visits to adjust antihypertensive treatment as needed. Primary outcome was difference in systolic daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) change between baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: In both groups, systolic daytime ABPM decreased significantly from baseline to follow-up. The decrease in systolic daytime ABPM was -11.9 mmHg in the intervention group and -9.6 mmHg in the control group (mean difference -2.3 [95% CI -6.1 to -1.5], p = 0.225). The likelihood of daytime ABPM normalization was similar in the two groups [32/113 (28%) vs 46/123 (37%), p = 0.139]. CONCLUSION: Antihypertensive treatment based on telemonitoring of home BP was as effective as usual monitoring of office BP with regards to reduction of BP.     

Assessment of self-monitoring of blood pressure in the diagnosis of isolated clinic hypertension

BACKGROUND: There are no studies assessing cardiovascular morbidity, morality in patients with isolated clinical hypertension (ICH) with self-blood pressure monitoring (SBPM). OBJECTIVES: To determine the value of SBPM in the diagnosis of ICH. METHODS: Cohort study. New hypertensive and normotensive patients 15-75 years, without cardiovascular events history. VARIABLES: Oriented anamnesis hypertension; blood pressure measurements (BP): clinical BP, SBPM and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM); evaluation of target organ damage (TOD); electrocardiogram; retinography and microalbuminuria (MA). RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five patients, 95 hypertensive (62.1% males; mean age 59.08+/-16.8 years), 40 normotensive (37.5% males; mean are 56.32+/-10.22 years). BP measurements (mmHG) in normotensives vs hypertensives: clinical BP, 125.36/76.74 vs 149.81/87.86 mmHg (p<0.0001) and SPPM, 114.90/69.96 vs 142.06/86.31 (p<0.0001). Twenty-four-hour ABPM: 135.41/81/81.74. Prevalence of TOD in hypertensive: 23.10% left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), sustained hypertension (SH): clinic BP, 149.88/86.34 vs 152.51/89.55 (p>0.10); SBPM: 147.895/88.95 vs 128.17/79 (p<0.0001) and ABPM, 141.72/88.22 vs 131.66/80 (p=0.053 for systolic). TOD in SH vs ICH: LVH, 24.6% vs 19.2% (p=0.814); exudates or haemorrhages, 7.7% vs 9.8% (p=0.580). The risk of an occurrence of any TOD in ICH patients is lower for 125/80 (OR=2.5). CONCLUSIONS: VAMPAHICA will provide information about value SBPM in the diagnosis of ICH. Advanced retinopathy is relative frequent in ICH patients. If TOD is accepted as a surrogate endpoint, the diagnostic values of ICH will be probably decreased.     

Trend of office and home blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients: changes in antihypertensive medication and salt intake

Blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensives has improved in recent years; however, it remains insufficient. We investigated the trend of BP control status in hypertensive patients with antihypertensive medication and salt intake. Two hundred and eight treated hypertensive patients were prospectively followed between 2007 and 2012. During this period, average clinic BP significantly decreased from 137?±?12/80?±?9 to 133?±?11/76?±?8?mmHg, and the achievement rate of BP control defined as <140/90?mmHg increased from 58% to 71% (p?p?p?相似文献