Multiple clinic and home blood pressure measurements versus ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

To compare multiple clinic and home blood pressure (BP) measurements and ambulatory BP monitoring in the clinical evaluation of hypertension, we studied 239 middle-aged pharmacologically untreated hypertensive men and women who were referred to the study from the primary healthcare provider. Ambulatory BP monitoring was successfully completed for 233 patients. Clinic BP was measured by a trained nurse with a mercury sphygmomanometer and averaged over 4 duplicate measures. Self-recorded home BP was measured with a semiautomatic oscillometric device twice every morning and twice every evening on 7 consecutive days. Ambulatory BP was recorded with an auscultatory device. Two-dimensionally controlled M-mode echocardiography was successfully performed on 232 patients. Twenty-four-hour urinary albumin was determined by nephelometry. Clinic BP was 144.5+/-12.6/94.5+/-7.4 mm Hg, home BP (the mean of 14 self-recorded measures) was 138.9+/-13.1/92.9+/-8.6 mm Hg, home morning BP (the mean of the first 4 duplicate morning measures) was 137.1+/-13.7/92.4+/-9.2 mm Hg, daytime ambulatory BP was 148.3+/-13. 9/91.9+/-7.8 mm Hg, nighttime ambulatory BP was 125.5+/-16.4/75. 6+/-8.9 mm Hg, and 24-hour ambulatory BP was 141.7+/-14.0/87.2+/-7.6 mm Hg. Pearson correlation coefficients of clinic, home, home morning, and daytime ambulatory BPs to albuminuria and to the characteristics of the left ventricle were nearly equal. In multivariate regression analyses, 36% (P<0.0001) of the cross-sectional variation in left ventricular mass index was attributed to gender and home morning systolic BP in models that originally included age, gender, and clinic, self-measured home morning, and ambulatory daytime, nighttime, and 24-hour systolic and diastolic BPs. We concluded that carefully controlled nonphysician-measured clinic and self-measured home BPs, when averaged over 4 duplicate measurements, are as reliable as ambulatory BP monitoring in the clinical evaluation of untreated hypertension.     

Out-of-office blood pressure in children and adolescents: disparate findings by using home or ambulatory monitoring

BACKGROUND: The validity of home blood pressure (HBP) measurements in children has not been evaluated, although in clinical practice such measurements are being used. This study compares HBP, with clinic (CBP) and daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in children and adolescents. METHODS: Fifty-five children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years were evaluated with CBP (three visits), HBP (6 days), and daytime ABP. Mean age was 12.3 +/- 2.9 (SD) years, 33 boys. According to the Task Force CBP criteria, 26 were hypertensives, 6 had high-normal BP (hypertensive group), and 23 were normotensives (normotensive group). RESULTS: In the hypertensive group, CBP was 130.8 +/- 7.6/72.5 +/- 8.1 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic), HBP 118.9 +/- 6.3/73.7 +/- 6.7, and ABP 130.8 +/- 8.1/75.5 +/- 8.3. In the normotensive group, CBP was 112.8 +/- 8/63.1 +/- 6.3, HBP 106.7 +/- 8.4/67.2 +/- 5.2, and ABP 123.9 +/- 7.2/72 +/- 4.3. Strong correlations (P < .001) were observed between CBP-HBP (r = 0.73/0.57, systolic/diastolic), CBP-ABP (r = 0.59/0.49), and HBP-ABP (r = 0.72/0.66). In normotensive subjects, ABP was higher than both CBP and HBP for systolic and diastolic BP (P < .001). Furthermore, systolic HBP was lower than CBP (P < .01), whereas the opposite was true for diastolic BP (P < .05). In hypertensive subjects systolic HBP was lower than both CBP and ABP (P < .001), whereas CBP did not differ from ABP. For diastolic BP no differences were found among measurement methods. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that, in contrast to adults in whom HBP is close to the levels of daytime ABP, in children and adolescents HBP appears to be significantly lower than daytime ABP. Until more data become available, caution is needed in the interpretation of HBP in children and adolescents.     

Weather-related changes in 24-hour blood pressure profile: effects of age and implications for hypertension management

A downward titration of antihypertensive drug regimens in summertime is often performed on the basis of seasonal variations of clinic blood pressure (BP). However, little is known about the actual interaction between outdoor air temperature and the effects of antihypertensive treatment on ambulatory BP. The combined effects of aging, treatment, and daily mean temperature on clinic and ambulatory BP were investigated in 6404 subjects referred to our units between October 1999 and December 2003. Office and mean 24-hour systolic BP, as well as morning pressure surge, were significantly lower in hot (>90th percentiles of air temperature; 136+/-19, 130+/-14, and 33.3+/-16.1 mm Hg; P<0.05 for all), and higher in cold (<10th percentiles) days (141+/-12, 133+/-11, and 37.3+/-9.5 mm Hg; at least P<0.05 for all) when compared with intermediate days (138+/-18, 132+/-14, and 35.3+/-15.4 mm Hg). At regression analysis, 24-hour and daytime systolic pressure were inversely related to temperature (P<0.01 for all). Conversely, nighttime systolic pressure was positively related to temperature (P<0.02), with hot days being associated with higher nighttime pressure. Air temperature was identified as an independent predictor of nighttime systolic pressure increase in the group of elderly treated hypertensive subjects only. No significant relationship was found between air temperature and heart rate. Our results show for the first time that hot weather is associated with an increase in systolic pressure at night in treated elderly hypertensive subjects. This may be because of a nocturnal BP escape from the effects of a lighter summertime drug regimen and may have important implications for seasonal modulation of antihypertensive treatment.     

Comparative antihypertensive effects of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone on ambulatory and office blood pressure

Low-dose thiazide-type diuretics are recommended as initial therapy for most hypertensive patients. Chlorthalidone has significantly reduced stroke and cardiovascular end points in several landmark trials; however, hydrochlorothiazide remains favored in practice. Most clinicians assume that the drugs are interchangeable, but their antihypertensive effects at lower doses have not been directly compared. We conducted a randomized, single-blinded, 8-week active treatment, crossover study comparing chlorthalidone 12.5 mg/day (force-titrated to 25 mg/day) and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/day (force-titrated to 50 mg/day) in untreated hypertensive patients. The main outcome, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring, was assessed at baseline and week 8, along with standard office BP readings every 2 weeks. Thirty patients completed the first active treatment period, whereas 24 patients completed both. An order-drug-time interaction was observed with chlorthalidone; therefore, data from only the first active treatment period was considered. Week 8 ambulatory BPs indicated a greater reduction from baseline in systolic BP with chlorthalidone 25 mg/day compared with hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg/day (24-hour mean = -12.4+/-1.8 mm Hg versus -7.4+/-1.7 mm Hg; P=0.054; nighttime mean = -13.5+/-1.9 mm Hg versus -6.4+/-1.8 mm Hg; P=0.009). Office systolic BP reduction was lower at week 2 for chlorthalidone 12.5 mg/day versus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/day (-15.7+/-2.2 mm Hg versus -4.5+/-2.1 mm Hg; P=0.001); however, by week 8, reductions were statistically similar (-17.1+/-3.7 versus -10.8+/-3.5; P=0.84). Within recommended doses, chlorthalidone is more effective in lowering systolic BPs than hydrochlorothiazide, as evidenced by 24-hour ambulatory BPs. These differences were not apparent with office BP measurements.     

Docosahexaenoic acid but not eicosapentaenoic acid lowers ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate in humans.

Animal studies suggest that the 2 major omega3 fatty acids found in fish, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), may have differential effects on blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR). The aim of this study was to determine whether there were significant differences in the effects of purified EPA or DHA on ambulatory BP and HR in humans. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of parallel design, 59 overweight, mildly hyperlipidemic men were randomized to 4 g/d of purified EPA, DHA, or olive oil (placebo) capsules and continued their usual diets for 6 weeks. Fifty-six subjects completed the study. Only DHA reduced 24-hour and daytime (awake) ambulatory BP (P<0.05). Relative to the placebo group, 24-hour BP fell 5.8/3.3 (systolic/diastolic) mm Hg and daytime BP fell 3.5/2.0 mm Hg with DHA. DHA also significantly reduced 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime (asleep) ambulatory HRs (P=0. 001). Relative to the placebo group, DHA reduced 24-hour HR by 3. 5+/-0.8 bpm, daytime HR by 3.7+/-1.2 bpm, and nighttime HR by 2. 8+/-1.2. EPA had no significant effect on ambulatory BP or HR. Supplementation with EPA increased plasma phospholipid EPA from 1. 66+/-0.07% to 9.83+/-0.06% (P<0.0001) but did not change DHA levels. Purified DHA capsules increased plasma phospholipid DHA levels from 4.00+/-0.27% to 10.93+/-0.62% (P<0.0001) and led to a small, nonsignificant increase in EPA (1.52+/-0.12% to 2.26+/-0.16%). Purified DHA but not EPA reduced ambulatory BP and HR in mildly hyperlipidemic men. The results of this study suggest that DHA is the principal omega3 fatty acid in fish and fish oils that is responsible for their BP- and HR-lowering effects in humans. These results have important implications for human nutrition and the food industry.     

Addition of spironolactone in patients with resistant arterial hypertension (ASPIRANT): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

There is currently limited data on which drug should be used to improve blood pressure (BP) control in patients with resistant hypertension. This study was designed to assess the effect of the addition of 25 mg of spironolactone on BP in patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Patients with office systolic BP >140 mm Hg or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg despite treatment with at least 3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. One hundred seventeen patients were randomly assigned to receive spironolactone (n=59) or a placebo (n=58) as an add-on to their antihypertensive medication, by the method of simple randomization. Analyses were done with 111 patients (55 in the spironolactone and 56 in the placebo groups). At 8 weeks, the primary end points, a difference in mean fall of BP on daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), between the groups was -5.4 mm Hg (95%CI -10.0; -0.8) for systolic BP (P=0.024) and -1.0 mm Hg (95% CI -4.0; 2.0) for diastolic BP (P=0.358). The APBM nighttime systolic, 24-hour ABPM systolic, and office systolic BP values were significantly decreased by spironolactone (difference of -8.6, -9.8, and -6.5 mm Hg; P=0.011, 0.004, and 0.011), whereas the fall of the respective diastolic BP values was not significant (-3.0, -1.0, and -2.5 mm Hg; P=0.079, 0.405, and 0.079). The adverse events in both groups were comparable. In conclusion, spironolactone is an effective drug for lowering systolic BP in patients with resistant arterial hypertension.     

Effectiveness of the once-daily calcium antagonist, lacidipine, in controlling 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure

The efficacy of the new once-daily dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, lacidipine, in reducing ambulatory intraarterial blood pressure (BP) was examined in 12 untreated hypertensive patients. The intraarterial recording was commenced 24 hours before the first 4-mg dose and was continued for a further 24 hours thereafter. After dose titration and chronic therapy, a second 24-hour ambulatory BP recording was made. There was a steady onset of drug action, maximal at 2 hours, but with reflex tachycardia after the first dose. Chronic administration reduced BP throughout the 24-hour period, without tachycardia. Mean daytime reduction in BP was 20 mm Hg systolic (p less than 0.005) and 12 mm Hg diastolic (p less than 0.02). Mean nighttime reduction was 8-mm Hg systolic (p less than 0.05) and 6-mm Hg diastolic (difference not significant). There was no postural decrease in BP on 60 degrees head-up tilting and hypotensive action was maintained during isometric exercise (reduction at peak of 32/18 mm Hg, p less than 0.05) and throughout dynamic exercise (reduction at peak of 23/14 mm Hg, p less than 0.05). Lacidipine is an effective once-daily antihypertensive agent, with good control of stress response.     

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure for the management of antihypertensive treatment: a randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study was to assess whether the use of 24-h blood pressure (BP) measurement in the management of antihypertensive therapy improves BP in patients with sustained hypertension. Patients with sustained hypertension (office BP > or =140/90 mm Hg, and 24-h systolic BP > or =130/80 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to a strategy using 24-h BP to manage antihypertensive treatment (target <130/80 mm Hg) or to a standard strategy using office BP (target <140/90 mm Hg). The primary end point was change in 24-h systolic BP at 1 year of follow-up. We included 136 patients in the primary analysis. After 1 year of follow-up, the change in 24-h systolic BP was significantly greater in the ambulatory BP group compared with the office BP group (mean difference (95% confidence interval) -3.6 (-7.0, -0.3), P=0.03). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed essentially unchanged results. The mean number of antihypertensive drugs per participant at 1 year of follow-up was 1.76+/-1.1 and 1.95+/-0.9 in the ambulatory and office BP group, respectively (P=0.049). The benefit of ambulatory BP monitoring was mainly seen in patients with previously known hypertension (mean difference -7.2 (-11.6, -2.8), P=0.002), but not in those with newly detected hypertension (mean difference 0.2 (-4.9, 5.4), P=0.93). In conclusion, using 24-h BP for the management of antihypertensive therapy in patients with sustained hypertension leads to a greater BP reduction compared with a standard treatment strategy using office BP, although fewer antihypertensive drugs were used in the ambulatory BP group.     

A comparison of home measurement and ambulatory monitoring of blood pressure in the adjustment of antihypertensive treatment

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare home and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in the adjustment of antihypertensive treatment. METHODS: After a 4-week washout period, patients whose untreated daytime diastolic ambulatory BP averaged > or = 85 mm Hg were randomized to be treated according to their ambulatory or home BP. Antihypertensive treatment was adjusted at 6-week intervals according to the mean daytime ambulatory diastolic BP or the mean home diastolic BP, depending on the patient's randomization group. If the diastolic BP stayed above 80 mm Hg, the physician blinded to randomization intensified hypertensive treatment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients completed the study. During the 24-week follow-up period both systolic and diastolic BP decreased significantly within both groups (P < .001). At the end of the study, the systolic/diastolic differences between ambulatory (n = 46) and home (n = 52) BP groups in home, daytime ambulatory, night-time ambulatory, and 24-h ambulatory BP changes averaged 2.6/2.6 mm Hg, 0.6/1.7 mm Hg, 1.0/1.4 mm Hg, and 0.6/1.5 mm Hg, respectively (P range .06 to .75) A nonsignificant trend to more intensive drug therapy in the ambulatory BP group and a nonsignificant trend to larger share of patients reaching (57.7% v 43.5%, P = .16) the target pressure in the home BP group was observed due to the 3.8 mm Hg difference in ambulatory and home diastolic BP at randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The adjustment of antihypertensive treatment based on either ambulatory or home BP measurement led to good BP control. No significant between-group differences in BP changes were seen at the end of the study. Additional research is needed to provide more conclusive results.     

Significance of white-coat hypertension in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: a meta-analysis using the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes population

The significance of white-coat hypertension in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension remains poorly understood. We analyzed subjects from the population-based 11-country International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes database who had daytime ambulatory blood pressure (BP; ABP) and conventional BP (CBP) measurements. After excluding persons with diastolic hypertension by CBP (≥90 mm Hg) or by daytime ABP (≥85 mm Hg), a history of cardiovascular disease, and persons <18 years of age, the present analysis totaled 7295 persons, of whom 1593 had isolated systolic hypertension. During a median follow-up of 10.6 years, there was a total of 655 fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The analyses were stratified by treatment status. In untreated subjects, those with white-coat hypertension (CBP ≥140/<90 mm Hg and ABP <135/<85 mm Hg) and subjects with normal BP (CBP <140/<90 mm Hg and ABP <135/<85 mm Hg) were at similar risk (adjusted hazard rate: 1.17 [95% CI: 0.87-1.57]; P=0.29). Furthermore, in treated subjects with isolated systolic hypertension, the cardiovascular risk was similar in elevated conventional and normal daytime systolic BP as compared with those with normal conventional and normal daytime BPs (adjusted hazard rate: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.79-1.53]; P=0.57). However, both treated isolated systolic hypertension subjects with white-coat hypertension (adjusted hazard rate: 2.00; [95% CI: 1.43-2.79]; P<0.0001) and treated subjects with normal BP (adjusted hazard rate: 1.98 [95% CI: 1.49-2.62]; P<0.0001) were at higher risk as compared with untreated normotensive subjects. In conclusion, subjects with sustained hypertension who have their ABP normalized on antihypertensive therapy but with residual white-coat effect by CBP measurement have an entity that we have termed, "treated normalized hypertension." Therefore, one should be cautious in applying the term "white-coat hypertension" to persons receiving antihypertensive treatment.     

Effect of continuous positive airway pressure on ambulatory BP in patients with sleep apnea and hypertension: a placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) is an independent risk factor for arterial hypertension. Several controlled trials have investigated the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on BP in patients with OSAS, but its effect on hypertensive patients has not been analyzed specifically. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of CPAP on ambulatory BP in patients with OSAS and hypertension who were undergoing antihypertensive treatment. Design and patients: We conducted a parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 68 patients with OSAS and hypertension, who were receiving treatment with antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomly allocated to either therapeutic or subtherapeutic CPAP for 4 weeks. Ambulatory BP was registered at baseline and after treatment. Antihypertensive treatment was not changed during the study. Changes in BP were assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: There were no baseline differences in the apnea-hypopnea index, comorbidities, or ambulatory BP between groups. Objective compliance with CPAP was similar in both the therapeutic and subtherapeutic groups (5.0 +/- 1.4 h/d vs 4.4 +/- 1.9 h/d, respectively; p = 0.13 [mean +/- SD]). There was a small and statistically nonsignificant decrease (- 0.3 +/- 6.3 mm Hg vs - 1.1 +/- 7.9 mm Hg; difference, - 0.8 mm Hg [95% confidence interval, - 2.7 to 4.3]; p = 0.65) in 24-h mean BP (24hMBP) in both subtherapeutic and therapeutic groups after 4 weeks of treatment. No significant changes in systolic, diastolic, daytime, or nighttime BP were observed. The normal circadian dipper pattern was restored in a higher proportion of patients in the therapeutic group compared to the subtherapeutic CPAP group, although differences were not significant (11 of 32 patients vs 3 of 25 patients; odds ratio, 3.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 20.30; p = 0.10). There was no correlation between the magnitude of change in 24hMBP and CPAP compliance, OSAS severity, or number of antihypertensive drugs used. CONCLUSION: Four weeks of CPAP did not reduce BP in patients with OSAS and hypertension who were treated with antihypertensive medication, compared to placebo group.     

Diminished nocturnal decline in blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.

To assess the circadian blood pressure (BP) changes in elderly hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), the ambulatory BP was measured noninvasively every 30 minutes for 24 hours in those patients with LVH (n = 15) and without LVH (n = 23), and in normotensive elderly subjects (n = 11). Although the daytime systolic BP (SBP) was comparable in the two hypertensive groups, the nighttime SBP in patients with LVH tended to be higher than in patients without LVH (149.0 +/- 15.1 versus 138.4 +/- 20.1 mm Hg, p less than 0.10). The LV mass index correlated significantly with the nighttime SBP (r = 0.43, p less than 0.01), but not with the daytime SBP (r = 0.24, ns), with clinic SBP (r = 0.14, p = ns) or the SBP after handgrip exercise (r = 0.31, p = ns). The difference in the systolic BP between daytime and nighttime (D-N SBP) in patients with LVH (2.8 +/- 9.4 mm Hg) was significantly less than that in patients without LVH (12.8 +/- 16.0 mm Hg) (p less than 0.02). In addition, the D-N SBP correlated inversely with the left ventricular mass index (r = -0.33, p less than 0.05). It was concluded that hypertension in the elderly with LVH was associated with a diminished nocturnal decline in blood pressure.     

Arterial hypertension difficult to control in the elderly patient. The significance of the "white coat effect"]

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have revealed a high prevalence of white coat effect among treated hypertensive patients. The difference between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure seems to be more pronounced in older patients. This abnormal rise in blood pressure BP in treated hypertensive patients can lead to a misdiagnosis of refractory hypertension. Clinicians may increase the dosage of antihypertensive drugs or add further medication, increasing costs and producing harmful secondary effects. Our aim was to evaluate the discrepancy between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients on adequate antihypertensive treatment and to analyse the magnitude of the white coat effect and its relationship with age, gender, clinic blood pressure and cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events. POPULATION AND METHODS: We included 50 consecutive moderate/severe hypertensive patients, 58% female, mean age 68 +/- 10 years (48-88), clinic blood pressure (3 visits) > 160/90 mm Hg, on antihypertensive adequate treatment > 2 months with good compliance and without pseudohypertension. The patients were submitted to clinical evaluation (risk score), clinic blood pressure and heart rate, electrocardiogram and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (Spacelabs 90,207). Systolic and diastolic 24 hour, daytime, night-time blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. We considered elderly patients above 60 years of age (80%). We defined white coat effect as the difference between systolic clinic blood pressure and daytime systolic blood pressure BP > 20 mm Hg or the difference between diastolic clinic blood pressure and daytime diastolic blood pressure > 10 mm Hg and severe white coat effect as systolic clinic blood pressure--daytime systolic blood pressure > 40 mm Hg or diastolic clinic blood pressure--daytime diastolic blood pressure > 20 mm Hg. The patients were asked to take blood pressure measurements out of hospital (at home or by a nurse). The majority of them performed an echocardiogram examination. RESULTS: Clinic blood pressure was significantly different from daytime ambulatory blood pressure (189 +/- 19/96 +/- 13 vs 139 +/- 18/78 +/- 10 mm Hg, p < 0.005). The magnitude of white coat effect was 50 +/- 17 (8-84) mm Hg for systolic blood pressure and 18 +/- 11 (-9 +/- 41) mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure. A marked white coat effect (> 40 mm Hg) was observed in 78% of our hypertensive patients. In elderly people (> 60 years), this difference was greater (50 +/- 15 vs 45 +/- 21 mm Hg) though not significantly. We did not find significant differences between sexes (males 54 +/- 16 mm Hg vs 48 +/- 17 mm Hg). In 66% of these patients, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showed daytime blood pressure values < 140/90 mm Hg, therefore refractory hypertension was excluded. In 8 patients (18%) there was a previous history of ischemic cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease and all of them had a marked difference between systolic clinic and daytime blood pressure (> 40 mm Hg). Blood pressure measurements performed out of hospital did not help clinicians to identify this phenomena as only 16% were similar (+/- 5 mm Hg) to ambulatory daytime values. CONCLUSIONS: Some hypertensive patients, on adequate antihypertensive treatment, have a significant difference between clinic blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure measurements. This difference (White Coat Effect) is greater in elderly patients and in men (NS). Although clinic blood pressure values were significantly increased, the majority of these patients have controlled blood pressure on ambulatory monitoring. In this population, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was of great value to identify a misdiagnosis of refractory hypertension, which could lead to improper decisions in the therapeutic management of elderly patients (increasing treatment) and compromise cerebrovascular or coronary circulation.     

Changes of nocturnal blood pressure dipping status in hypertensives by nighttime dosing of alpha-adrenergic blocker, doxazosin : results from the HALT study

Abnormal nocturnal blood pressure (BP) dipping status may be partly determined by nocturnal sympathetic activity. We studied the effect of nighttime dosing of an alpha(1)-adrenergic blocker, doxazosin, on the BP dipping status of 118 hypertensives, all of whom underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring before and after treatment. The mean nighttime/daytime ratio of systolic BP was increased (0.91 after therapy versus 0.89 at baseline, P<0.05). The patients were initially divided into 4 groups on the basis of their dipping status at the baseline assessment: 18 (15%) were extreme dippers, with a nighttime systolic BP fall of at least 20% of daytime BP; 46 (39%) were dippers (fall between 10% and 20%); 48 (41%) were nondippers (fall between 0% and 10%); and 6 (5%) were risers (nocturnal increase of systolic BP). A shift in dipping status toward less nocturnal BP dipping was observed after doxazosin therapy (P<0.05). Dipping status was determined by nighttime more than by daytime BP, and this was not explained by differences in the number of daytime and nighttime readings. The effects of doxazosin on the mean nocturnal systolic BP changes were an increase of 4.3 mm Hg in extreme dippers and decreases of 0.7 mm Hg in dippers, 12 mm Hg in nondippers, and 18 mm Hg in risers; the reduction was only significant in the latter 2 groups (both P<0.01). To estimate the effects of regression to the mean on the changes in dipping status, we also defined dipping status with the average of the BPs before and after doxazosin and found no difference in the degree of nighttime BP reduction among each group. The reduction of daytime BP was now significantly greater in the subgroups with less dipping: 6. 4 mm Hg for extreme dippers and 16 mm Hg for risers (P<0.05). In conclusion, nighttime dosing with doxazosin markedly affects the nocturnal BP dipping status of hypertensives, but the apparently greater reduction in nighttime pressure in nondippers and risers may be, at least partly, due to the effect of regression to the mean. The most important determinants of the effect of doxazosin were the absolute BP levels, both day and night, rather than dipping status per se.     

Masked Hypertension Defined by Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Is Associated With an Increased Serum Glucose Level and Urinary Albumin‐Creatinine Ratio

J Clin Hypertens(Greenwich). 2010;12:578–587. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors evaluated the relationship of hypertensive target organ damage to masked hypertension assessed by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring in 129 participants without taking antihypertensive medication. Masked hypertension was defined as office BP ≤140/90 mm Hg and 24-hour ambulatory BP ≥130/80 mm Hg. The masked hypertensive participants defined by 24-hour ambulatory BP (n=13) had a higher serum glucose level (126 vs 96 mg/dL, P=.001) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (38.0 vs 7.5 mg/gCr, P<.001) than the normotensive participants (n=74); however, these relationships were not observed when the authors defined groups using HBP (≥135/85 mm Hg). Masked hypertension by both 24-hour ambulatory BP and HBP had a higher urinary albumin-creatinine ratio than normotension by both 24-hour ambulatory BP and HBP (62.1 vs 7.4 mg/gCr, P=.001), and than masked hypertension by HBP alone (9.3 mg/gCr, P=.009). Masked hypertension defined by 24-hour ambulatory BP is associated with an increased serum glucose level and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, but these relationships are not observed in masked hypertension defined by HBP.     

Mean and range of the ambulatory pressure in normotensive subjects from a meta-analysis of 23 studies.

To perform a meta-analysis of published reports in an attempt to determine the mean and range of normal ambulatory blood pressure (BP), 23 studies including a total of 3,476 normal subjects were reviewed. Most studies were compatible with a mean 24-hour BP in the range of 115 to 120/70 to 75 mm Hg, a mean daytime BP of 120 to 125/75 to 80 mm Hg, and a mean nighttime BP of 105 to 110/60 to 65 mm Hg. With weighting for the number of subjects included in the individual studies, the 24-hour BP averaged 118/72 mm Hg, the daytime BP 123/76 mm Hg, and the nighttime BP 106/64 mm Hg. The night/day pressure ratio averaged 0.87 for systolic and 0.83 for diastolic BP, with ranges across the individual studies from 0.79 to 0.92 and from 0.75 to 0.90, respectively. If the mean +/- 2 standard deviation interval in the various studies was considered normal, the range of normality was on average 97 to 139/57 to 87 mm Hg for the 24-hour BP, 101 to 146/61 to 91 mm Hg for the daytime BP, and 86 to 127/48 to 79 mm Hg for the nighttime BP. Until the results of prospective studies on the relation between the ambulatory BP and the incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality become available, the aforementioned intervals, which summarize the experience of 23 investigators, could serve as a temporary reference for clinical practice.     

Effects of celecoxib on ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients on ACE inhibitors

Nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents have been shown to attenuate the antihypertensive efficacy of ACE inhibitors with average increases in systolic blood pressure (BP) of 5 to 10 mm Hg. Less is known about the specific cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors now widely used for the treatment of arthritis. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of celecoxib compared with placebo on 24-hour BP levels in ACE inhibitor-treated patients with hypertension. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial involving 178 men and women (mean age, 53 years) with essential hypertension who were treated and controlled with lisinopril monotherapy (10 to 40 mg daily). Baseline BP values were obtained using 24-hour ambulatory recordings. Patients received either celecoxib, 200 mg twice daily (twice the recommended dose for osteoarthritis) (n=91), or placebo (n=87) for 4 weeks, and changes in the 24-hour BP, body weight, and clinical laboratory parameters were assessed. Mean changes from baseline in the 24-hour systolic and diastolic BP were 2.6/1.5+/-0.9/0.6 mm Hg on celecoxib versus 1.0/0.3+/-1/0.6 mm Hg on placebo (P=0.34 for systolic BP; P=0.45 for diastolic BP). The proportion of patients whose 24-hour BP increased by at least 5, 10, 15, or 20 mm Hg were also similar on celecoxib and placebo. No changes in body weight, serum creatinine, or potassium occurred in either group. Thus, these data demonstrate that high doses of celecoxib have no significant effect on the antihypertensive effect of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril. The placebo-subtracted changes observed in 24-hour BP (1.6/1.2 mm Hg) are less than what has been reported for nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents in ACE inhibitor-treated patients.     

The Effects of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory therapy on 24-hour blood pressure in patients with hypertension, osteoarthritis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors may attenuate the efficacy of antihypertensive agents in high-risk patients. Therefore, we conducted a double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate the effects of celecoxib, rofecoxib, and naproxen on 24-hour blood pressure (BP) in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 200 mg of celecoxib once daily (n = 136), 25 mg of rofecoxib once daily (n = 138), or 500 mg of naproxen twice daily (n = 130) for 12 weeks. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and validated arthritis efficacy assessments were conducted at randomization and at weeks 6 and 12 of treatment. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in average 24-hour systolic BP at week 6. RESULTS: Reductions in osteoarthritis symptoms, including pain, mobility, and stiffness, were similar in all treatment groups. The mean +/- SE 24-hour systolic BP following 6 weeks of therapy was increased significantly by rofecoxib (from 130.3 +/- 1.2 to 134.5 +/- 1.4 mm Hg; P < .001) but not by celecoxib (132.0 +/- 1.3 to 131.9 +/- 1.3 mm Hg; P = .54) or naproxen (133.7 +/- 1.5 to 133.0 +/- 1.4 mm Hg; P = .74). The BP difference between rofecoxib and celecoxib was 3.78 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 1.18-6.38; P = .005); between rofecoxib and naproxen, 3.85 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 1.15-6.55; P = .005). The proportion of patients with controlled hypertension at baseline who developed ambulatory hypertension by week 6 (24-hour systolic BP>135 mm Hg) was significantly greater with rofecoxib (30%) than with celecoxib (16%) (P = .05) but not significantly greater than with naproxen (19%). CONCLUSIONS: At equally effective doses for osteoarthritis management, treatment with rofecoxib but not celecoxib or naproxen induced a significant increase in 24-hour systolic BP. However, destabilization of hypertension control occurred to some extent in all 3 treatment groups; this phenomenon was seen more often in patients treated with rofecoxib than with the other therapies.     

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.     

Lacidipine and blood pressure variability in diabetic hypertensive patients

The aim of our study was to assess the effects of lacidipine, a long-acting calcium antagonist, on 24-hour average blood pressure, blood pressure variability, and baroreflex sensitivity. In 10 mildly to moderately hypertensive patients with type II diabetes mellitus (aged 18 to 65 years), 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure was continuously monitored noninvasively (Portapres device) after a 3-week pretreatment with placebo and a subsequent 4-week once daily lacidipine (4 mg) or placebo treatment (double-blind crossover design). Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate means were computed each hour for 24 hours (day and night) at the end of each treatment period. Similar assessments were also made for blood pressure and heart rate variability (standard deviation and variation coefficient) and for 24-hour baroreflex sensitivity, which was quantified (1) in the time domain by the slope of the spontaneous sequences characterized by progressive increases or reductions of systolic blood pressure and RR interval and (2) in the frequency domain by the squared ratio of RR interval and systolic blood pressure spectral power approximately 0.1 and 0.3 Hz over the 24 hours. Compared with placebo, lacidipine reduced the 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure (P<0.05) with no significant change in heart rate. It also reduced 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime standard deviation (-19.6%, -14.4%, and -24.0%, respectively; P<0.05) and their variation coefficient. The 24-hour average slope of all sequences (7.7+/-1.7 ms/mm Hg) seen during placebo was significantly increased by lacidipine (8.7+/-1.8 ms/mm Hg, P<0.01), with a significant increase being obtained also for the 24-hour average alpha coefficient at 0.1 Hz (from 5.7+/-1.5 to 6.4+/-1.3 ms/mm Hg, P<0.01). Thus, in diabetic hypertensive patients, lacidipine reduced not only 24-hour blood pressure means but also blood pressure variability. This reduction was accompanied by an improvement of baroreflex sensitivity. Computer analysis of beat-to-beat 24-hour noninvasive blood pressure monitoring may offer valuable information about the effects of antihypertensive drugs on hemodynamic and autonomic parameters in daily life.