White-coat effect in normotension and hypertension

OBJECTIVES: The difference between clinic and daytime ambulatory blood pressure is referred to as the white-coat effect. In this study, we investigated (i) the magnitude of the white-coat effect in subjects with different daytime ambulatory blood pressure levels, and (ii) the association of the white-coat effect with left ventricular mass. METHODS: A total of 1581 subjects underwent clinic blood pressure readings, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and left ventricular echocardiographic assessment. Their mean daytime systolic blood pressure varied from 88.0 to 208.9 mmHg and their mean daytime diastolic blood pressure from 40.3 to 133.0 mmHg. RESULTS: A negative correlation was found between the systolic or diastolic white-coat effect and the systolic or diastolic daytime ambulatory blood pressure (r = -0.22, P < 0.000 and r = -0.50, P < 0.000, respectively). Left ventricular mass significantly correlated with ambulatory blood pressure (P < 0.001), but there was no association between left ventricular mass and clinic blood pressure or white-coat effect. Furthermore, the white-coat effect was reversed at the highest level of systolic or diastolic daytime ambulatory blood pressure (systolic over 170 mmHg or diastolic over 100 mmHg) when systolic or diastolic daytime ambulatory blood pressure was higher than systolic or diastolic clinic blood pressure (ambulatory blood pressure hypertension). CONCLUSIONS: The white-coat effect shows an inverse association with daytime ambulatory blood pressure level (systolic or diastolic), being significantly more prominent for levels below 140/80 mmHg for systolic/diastolic daytime ambulatory blood pressure and reversed with daytime ambulatory blood pressure levels above 170/100 mmHg.     

Comparison of ambulatory blood pressure determinations using the Remler and Spacelabs devices

Ambulatory blood pressure recorded with the Spacelabs was compared with both Remler recordings and office blood pressures in 11 normotensive and 13 hypertensive volunteers. Analysis of 324 simultaneous measurements with Remler and Spacelabs showed very high correlation for systolic and for diastolic blood pressure. For systolic blood pressure, measurements with Spacelabs recorder were lower than those with the Remler recorder by a mean of 3.6 +/- 6.5 mmHg, principally in hypertensive subjects. Spacelabs measurements were also lower than Remler measurements for diastolic blood pressure by a mean of 5.3 +/- 6.6 mmHg principally in normotensive subjects. The averages of blood pressure variability (standard deviation as index) recorded by each device were identical. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure differed by more than 10 and 5 mmHg respectively between the two devices in 11 and 83% of the subjects. These individual discrepancies were unpredictable. Comparison of Spacelabs records with office blood pressure measured with a standard mercury manometer showed discrepancies of more than 10 mmHg for systolic blood pressure and more than 5 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure in 46 and 42% of the 24 subjects, respectively. These discrepancies could be due, in part, to different methods of blood pressure measurements. These data demonstrate that the Spacelabs apparatus provides records for a group, reasonably close to those obtained with the Remler over a wide range of blood pressure. For the management of hypertension, the advantages--as compared to physician's measurements--of ambulatory blood pressures recorded with indirect methods,need to be weighed, taking into consideration the difference between the ambulatory record and the office blood pressure measured with the same device.     

The decision to treat moderate hypertension: repetition of office visits or ambulatory monitoring of arterial pressure?

World Health Organization (WHO) recommends antihypertensive therapy for mild to moderate hypertensive patients after 3 or more visits. We tested the hypothesis that an ambulatory blood pressure recording could also help to decide which patient need therapy. Blood pressure was measured in 89 essential, uncomplicated, hypertensive patients (diastolic (DBP): 90-110 mmHg, mean age: 41 +/- 13 years), with a mercury sphygmomanometer at 3 visits and with an ambulatory blood pressure recorder (Spacelabs) during 12 hours. According to WHO recommendations, patients were classified "WHO+" if they need a treatment (n = 44) and "WHO-" if they did not. The mean ambulatory DBP of each subject was compared to the arbitrary limit defined as the mean +2 standard deviations of the ambulatory DBP of a population of normotensive subjects in the same decade and same sex: patients with ambulatory DBP above this limit were defined "AMB+" (n = 27), the others were "AMB-". Ten patients were "WHO- AMB+" and 24 were "WHO+ AMB-". These discordances were independent of age, body weight, duration of hypertension, variability of ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure defined by the standard deviation. By contrast, the difference between the measurements of the simultaneous blood pressure measurements performed with the two methods (mercury sphyngmomanometer and Spacelabs) 2 times by each patient could explain in part these discrepancies. The Spacelabs underestimates DBP measured with the mercury sphyngmomanometer in patients "AMB-" but not in patient "AMB+".(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Repeated office blood pressure controls reduce the prevalence of white-coat hypertension and detect a group of white-coat normotensive patients

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether repeated office blood pressure controls may change the prevalence of white-coat hypertension among hypertensive patients. METHODS: We studied 221 newly diagnosed, never-treated hypertensive patients, all men, aged 31-60 years. On the first visit, they underwent sitting blood pressure measurements (two readings were taken by mercury sphygmomanometer and averaged) and non-invasive 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) every 15 min. Thereafter, each patient made four further visits over an 8-week period. On each visit, three sitting readings were taken and averaged. On the last visit, ABPM was performed again. Subjects who had hypertension in the clinic but whose daytime ambulatory blood pressure was less than 134/90 mmHg were considered to have white-coat hypertension. RESULTS: On the first visit, all patients were, by definition, clinically hypertensive and ABPM detected a prevalence of white-coat hypertension of 25.8%. On the following visits, the prevalence of clinical hypertensive patients progressively declined; on the last visit, the 82.3% of all patients resulted yet clinical hypertensive: on ambulatory blood pressure 71.9% were sustained hypertensives, whereas 10.4 had white-coat hypertension. Of the patients originally labelled as hypertensive, 17.7% proved to be clinically normotensive: 13.6% had also daytime ambulatory blood pressure in the normal range, whereas 4.1% showed elevated blood pressure during daytime ABPM (white-coat normotensives). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that repeated office blood pressure controls in newly diagnosed hypertensives reduce the number of office hypertensive patients, reduce the number of white-coat hypertensive patients and detect a small group of white-coat normotensive patients.     

The white-coat effect is associated with increased blood pressure reactivity to physical activity

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that blood pressure (BP) reactivity to the stress of a clinic visit, the so-called white-coat effect, is associated with increased BP reactivity to physical activity. DESIGN: Patients referred to our clinic for assessment of hypertension prospectively underwent 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring and simultaneous actigraphy. METHODS: The difference between mean clinic BP and mean daytime ambulatory BP was considered to be a measure of the white-coat effect. Presence or absence of a white-coat effect (clinic-daytime difference > 0 mmHg) was added to a mixed model regression of BP on mean activity score for the 10-min interval preceding BP measurement. RESULTS: The group (n = 421) was heterogeneous in age, gender, mean 24-h BP and use of antihypertensive medications. A total of 259 patients had a systolic white-coat effect; for diastolic BP there were 264. Female patients exhibited a significantly larger white-coat effect. Coefficients for the regressions of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure on physical activity levels were significantly higher in those who had a white-coat effect. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest increased BP reactivity to activity in those with a white-coat effect. Patients with a prominent white-coat effect may experience greater BP load during normal daily activities as a consequence of increased BP reactivity. In patients with white-coat hypertension, this may contribute to target-organ damage.     

White-coat hypertension: not guilty when correctly defined

The coexistence of persistently high office blood pressure with normal blood pressujre outside the medical setting is often referred to as 'white-coat', 'office' or 'isolated clinic' hypertension. The definition of normal blood pressure outside the medical setting is controversial. In our experience, not only the prevalence of white-coat hypertension, but also left ventricular mass measured echocardiographically and the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy in this condition markedly vary on going from more restrictive (lower) to more liberal (higher) limits of ambulatory blood pressure normalcy over quite a narrow range. In a prospective study, cardiovascular morbidities of healthy normotensive controls and subjects with white-coat hypertension did not differ. A more recent analysis of our database supports the use of qujite a restrictive definition of white-coat hypertension (average daytime blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg) in order to identify the minority of subjects who have a low risk of cardiovascular morbid events during the subsequent years. A recent document published by the American Society of Hypertension suggests that slightly higher upper limits of ambulatory blood pressure normalcy (i.e. average daytime blood pressure < 135 mmHg systolic and 85 mmHg diastolic) should be used. In a follow-up study by our group, 37% of subjects with white-coat hypertension spontaneously evolved into cases of ambulatory hypertension, with accompanying increases in left ventricular mass. In that study, the probability of a subject developing ambulatory hypertension increased with the baseline values of ambulatory blood pressure and it was quite low (20%) for those with daytime blood pressures below 130/80 mmHg. In two recent controlled studies, the rate of development of ambulatory hypertension over time for untreated subjects did not differ between the normotensive control group and the group with white-coat hypertension. A final answer regarding the clinical significance of white-coat hypertension will come from very large surveys of the natural history of this condition in the long term. For now, we suggest a verdict of innocence for white-coat hypertension when low values of daytime ambulatory blood pressure (i.e. < 130/80 mmHg) and absence of organ lesions and other risk factors coexist.     

Isolated ambulatory hypertension is common in outpatients referred to a hypertension centre

The present investigation was aimed at determining the prevalence and the blood pressure (BP) profile of isolated ambulatory hypertension, defined as an elevated ambulatory BP with normal office blood pressure, in a series of 1488 consecutive outpatients referred for routine clinical evaluation of suspected or established arterial hypertension. All patients underwent both office BP (OBP) measurement by a physician and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Using OBP values (cutoff for diagnosis of hypertension >/=140/90 mmHg) and daytime ABPM (cutoff for diagnosis of hypertension >/=135/85 mmHg), patients were classified into eight subgroups. In the whole series we found that, independent of treatment status, the prevalence of isolated ambulatory hypertension exceeded 10%. More importantly, 45.3% of individuals who presented with normal OBP values, showed elevated BP at ABPM. Night-time BP, 24-h pulse pressure, and BP variability were significantly higher in isolated ambulatory hypertensives than in normotensive or in white-coat hypertensive individuals. Therefore, isolated ambulatory hypertension is characterized by a blood pressure profile that is similar to that observed in sustained hypertension. These findings suggest that isolated ambulatory hypertension is very common and probably the indications for ABPM should be more extensive in outpatients referred to hypertensive centre.     

Ambulatory blood pressure is still elevated in treated hypertensive diabetic subjects compared with untreated diabetic subjects with the same office blood pressure.

Ambulatory blood pressure, ABP, was determined every 15 min for 24 h (Spacelabs 5200 system) in 16 hypertensive diabetic subjects treated for high blood pressure. Office blood pressure (OBP) in these subjects (systolic BP greater than 160 mmHg and diastolic BP greater than 95 mmHg before treatment) had been reduced by treatment to the borderline range (systolic less than or equal to 160 mmHg and/or diastolic less than or equal to 95 mmHg). Sixty-five diabetic subjects with normal or borderline OBP were included as controls. The two groups had the same age (58 +/- 10 yrs in both groups), duration of diabetes (15 +/- 9 yrs), 24 hr microalbumin, and included the same percentage of subjects with moderate neuropathy (36% and 29%, NS). The two groups had the same OBP (138 +/- 16 mmHg and 140 +/- 16 mmHg systolic, NS, 84 +/- 9 mmHg and 84 +/- 13 mmHg diastolic, NS). In contrast, ambulatory BP was significantly higher in the treated group, when compared with the controls (123 +/- 13 mmHg and 133 +/- 23 mmHg systolic, P less than 0.025, 77 +/- 7 mmHg and 84 +/- 16 mmHg diastolic, P less than 0.015). The difference was significant both in daytime and in nighttime, and was more significant in nighttime (11 mmHg systolic, P less than 0.02, 9 mmHg diastolic, P less than 0.004) than in daytime (9 mmHg systolic, P less than 0.05 and 5 mmHg diastolic, P less than 0.05). Ambulatory heart rate was also significantly higher in the treated group, but only in daytime (7 b/min difference, P less than 0.02). The study demonstrated the need to survey and investigate ABP in treated hypertensive diabetic subjects.     

White-coat hypertension in adults and children.

The measurement of blood pressure in the clinic triggers an altering reaction and a rise in blood pressure in the patient. Such a reaction is usually defined as a 'white-coat effect' or 'white-coat phenomenon', while the coexistence of persistently high office blood pressure with normal blood pressure outside the medical setting is referred to as 'white-coat' or 'office' hypertension. The white-coat effect can be estimated on a beat-to-beat basis using invasive (intra-arterial) or non-invasive methods, or, more commonly, by measuring the difference between office blood pressure and average daytime ambulatory blood pressure. The white-coat effect has little clinical importance because it is not associated with the target-organ damage and prognosis. We found that cardiovascular morbidities of healthy normotensive controls and subjects with white-coat hypertension did not differ. Results of a prospective study with intra-arterial blood pressure monitoring and preliminary prospective data from another group confirm our findings. A recent analysis of our database suggests that we should use a restrictive definition of white-coat hypertension (for example, average daytime blood pressure <130/80 mmHg) in order to identify the minority of subjects with low probabilities of developing a major cardiovascular event in the subsequent years. Also a recent document by the American Society of Hypertension suggests that one should use restrictive upper normal limits of ambulatory blood pressure (i.e., average daytime blood pressure <135 mmHg systolic and 85 mmHg diastolic). We have found that, over a follow-up period of 0.5-6.5 years, 37% of subjects with white-coat hypertension spontaneously evolve into ambulatory hypertension, with accompanying increase in left ventricular mass. The probability of developing ambulatory hypertension increased with the baseline values of ambulatory blood pressure, not of clinic blood pressure. A final answer on the clinical significance of white-coat hypertension will come from very large surveys of the natural history of this condition in the long term. Authors of these longitudinal studies should also compare the response to drug treatment of these subjects with that to life-style-modification measures.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of age on hypertensive status in patients with chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effect of age on hypertensive status in chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: We studied 459 prevalent CKD patients (stages 2-5, no dialysis), grouped by age (< 55, 55-64, 65-74, >or= 75 years), undergoing clinical blood pressure (CBP) and ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) measurement. RESULTS: Prevalence of diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy and previous cardiovascular disease progressively increased with aging; glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and hemoglobin decreased. Achievement of CBP target decreased from 16% in patients < 55 years to 6% in those >or= 75 years (P = 0.023). ABP 24-h systolic rose while diastolic decreased, with a consequent pulse pressure increase from 45 +/- 8 to 65 +/- 14 mmHg (P < 0.0001). Age, proteinuria, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and anemia but not GFR predicted higher 24-h pulse pressure. CBP overestimated systolic/diastolic daytime ABP by 14 +/- 18/7 +/- 11 mmHg on average, a greater difference in older than younger groups (P < 0.005). Conversely, CBP night-time ABP difference did not vary among groups (24 +/- 20/16 +/- 11 mmHg). These age-dependent differences determined a rising prevalence of white-coat hypertension (from 19 to 40%, P = 0.001) and night/day ratio of at least 0.9 (from 43 to 66%, P = 0.0004). Age, diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy and anemia but not GFR predicted nondipping status. Among the oldest patients, 13% had diastolic CBP below 70 mmHg, with 48% below the corresponding values of daytime (< 69 mmHg) or night-time ABP (< 60 mmHg). CONCLUSION: In CKD, prevalence of white-coat hypertension, nondipping status and potentially dangerous low diastolic ABP increases with aging. This suggests wider use of ABP monitoring in older patients and need for trials addressing identification of an age-specific blood pressure target.     

Task Force II: blood pressure measurement and cardiovascular outcome

OBJECTIVE: To reach a consensus on the prognostic significance of new techniques of automated blood pressure measurement. METHODS: A Task Force on the prognostic significance of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring wrote this review in preparation for the Eighth International Consensus Conference (28-31 October 2001, Sendai, Japan). This synopsis was amended to account for opinions aired at the conference and to reflect the common ground reached in the discussions. POINTS OF CONSENSUS: (1) Prospective studies in treated and untreated hypertensive patients and in the general population have demonstrated that, even after adjusting for established risk factors, the incidence of cardiovascular events is correlated with blood pressure on conventional as well as ambulatory measurement. Ambulatory monitoring, however, significantly refines the prediction already provided by conventional blood pressure measurement. (2) White-coat hypertension is usually defined as an elevated clinic blood pressure in the presence of a normal daytime ambulatory blood pressure. Event-based studies in hypertensive patients have convincingly demonstrated that the risk of cardiovascular disease is less in patients with white-coat hypertension than in those with higher ambulatory blood pressure levels even after controlling for concomitant risk factors. Based on prognostic evidence, white-coat hypertension can now be defined as a conventional blood pressure that is persistently equal to or greater than 140/90 mmHg with an average daytime ambulatory blood pressure of below 135/85 mmHg. The issue of whether or not white-coat hypertension predisposes to sustained hypertension needs further research. (3) There is a growing body of evidence showing that a decreased nocturnal fall in blood pressure (<10% of the daytime level) is associated with a worse prognosis, irrespective of whether night-time dipping is studied as a continuous or a class variable. (4) Intermittent techniques of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring are limited in terms of quantifying short-term blood pressure variability. Proven cardiovascular risk factors such as old age, a higher than usual blood pressure and diabetes mellitus are often associated with greater short-term blood pressure variability. After adjusting for these risk factors, some - but not all - studies have nevertheless reported an independent and positive relationship between cardiovascular outcome and measures of variability of daytime and night-time blood pressure, for example standard deviation. (5) Reference values for ambulatory blood pressure measurement in children are currently based on statistical parameters of blood pressure distribution. In children and adolescents, functional rather than distribution-based definitions of ambulatory hypertension have yet to be developed. (6) Several studies of gestational hypertension have shown that, compared with office measurement, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a better predictor of maternal and fetal complications. Pregnancy is a special indication for ambulatory monitoring so that the white-coat effect can be measured and pregnant women are not given antihypertensive drugs unnecessarily. (7) Ambulatory pulse pressure and the QKD interval are measurements obtained by ambulatory monitoring that to some extent reflect the functional characteristics of the large arteries. The QKD interval is correlated with left ventricular mass, and ambulatory pulse pressure is a strong predictor of cardiovascular outcome. (8) Under standardized conditions, the self-measurement of blood pressure is equally as effective as ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in identifying the white-coat effect, but further studies are required to elucidate fully the prognostic accuracy of self-measured blood pressure in comparison with conventional and ambulatory blood pressure measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory blood pressure measurement refines the prognostic information provided by conventional blood pressure readings obtained in the clinic or the doctor's office. Longitudinal studies of patients with white-coat hypertension should clarify the transient, persistent or progressive nature of this condition, particularly in paediatric patients, in whom white-coat hypertension may be a harbinger of sustained hypertension and target-organ damage in adulthood. Finally, the applicability, cost-effectiveness and long-term prognostic accuracy of the self-measurement of blood pressure should be evaluated in relation to conventional blood pressure measurement and ambulatory monitoring.     

White-coat hypertension and sex

OBJECTIVES: To compare, by sex, selected behavioral and biologic characteristics among normotensive, white-coat hypertensive, and essential hypertensive patients, and to assess the similarities and differences in these characteristics between men and women diagnosed as having white-coat hypertension. METHODS: The subjects of this study were 764 men (80 normotensives, 112 white-coat hypertensives, and 572 essential hypertensives) and 442 women (53 normotensives, 81 white-coat hypertensives and 308 essential hypertensives) who were a nonrandom subset of a larger cohort of patients being assessed to determine the prognostic significance of ambulatory blood pressure measurements. Physician-measured technician-measured and ambulatory (average awake and asleep) blood pressures, daytime blood pressure variability, the difference between awake and sleeping blood pressures, cholesterol levels, plasma renin activity (PRA) and anthropometric and demographic characteristics were compared across the patient classifications within each sex group and between male and female white-coat hypertensives using one-way analysis of variance. Student's t tests and chi squared analysis. RESULTS: Among men, cholesterol levels of normotensives were significantly lower than those of either white-coat or essential hypertensives (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). White-coat hypertensives were significantly younger than the essential hypertensives. The ambulatory and technician-measured blood pressures of the white-coat hypertensives were similar to those of the normotensives, as were most measures of variability of blood pressure. Among women, there were no differences in cholesterol level; however, white-coat hypertensives had lower PRA than did the essential hypertensives (P < 0.01) In contrast to the men, women with white-coat hypertension were similar in age to those with essential hypertension, and 10 years older than normotensives (P < 0.01). The ambulatory blood pressures of white-coat hypertensives were similar to those of normotensives, but their technician-measured blood pressures were intermediate between those of the normotensive and essential hypertensive groups. The daily variability of diastolic blood pressure among the white-coat-hypertensive women was greater than that of the normotensive women and similar to that of the essential hypertensive women. For all other measures of variability, data for white-coat-hypertensive women were similar to those for the normotensive women. There was no anthropometric or demographic difference among the patients either for men or for women. White-coat-hypertensive women were older than white-coat-hypertensive men and had higher systolic blood pressures and variabilities of blood pressure (P < 0.05). They also had lower PRA. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with the ideas that the phenomenon of white-coat hypertension is similar for the two sexes, women may exhibit white-coat hypertension at a greater age than do men, and women with white-coat hypertension may further exhibit a broader white-coat effect, reflected in blood pressures measured by other medical personnel.     

Measurements of blood pressure with various techniques in daily practice: uncertainty in diagnosing office hypertension with short-term in-hospital registration of blood pressure.

OBJECTIVE: To predict blood pressure outside the clinic from a short-term in-hospital registration for patients referred for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) with special attention to office hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of measurements of blood pressure was performed by the same technician for 187 patients, 82% of whom were being administered antihypertensive therapy. She performed three mercury measurements of blood pressure (Hg stress 1) and then three manually started measurements with a semi-automatic device (Dinamap 1846SX; Dinamap stress) alternated with three manually started readings with a SpaceLabs 90207 monitor (SpaceLabs stress) on the contralateral non-dominant arm. The in-hospital session was continued with 15 automatic Dinamap registrations at 2 min intervals without the technician being present (Dinamap unstressed, five periods of three measurements averaged) before the patient left the hospital for 24h ABPM. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with hypertension in the office (systolic blood pressure >/= 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure >/= 90 mmHg, or both) were 80% with Hg stress 1, 76% with Dinamap stress and 85.0% with SpaceLabs stress. Average diastolic SpaceLabs stress was 6.0+/-5.6 mmHg (significantly) higher than diastolic Dinamap stress, whereas the difference between systolic blood pressures was 0.2+/-10.0 mmHg. No further change in blood pressure occurred after the fourth period of Dinamap unstressed measurements. Office hypertension defined as SpaceLabs stress systolic blood pressure >/= 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure >/= 90 mmHg, or both, and SpaceLabs daytime systolic blood pressure < 135 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure < 85 mmHg was found in 21 individuals. Office hypertension defined with similar cut-off points in the comparison of Dinamap stress versus Dinamap unstressed period 5 was found in 29 cases, 10 of which overlapped with the definition SpaceLabs stress versus SpaceLabs daytime. The differences between Dinamap stress and Dinamap unstressed period 5 were significantly correlated to the changes of SpaceLabs stress and SpaceLabs daytime both for systolic (r =0.41) and for diastolic (r =0.32) blood pressures. CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of blood pressure in the office with various techniques (mercury, Dinamap and SpaceLabs) are not equivalent. Office hypertension cannot be reliably predicted from a short-term semi-automatic in-hospital registration of blood pressure with a Dinamap device.     

Anxiety and outcome expectations predict the white-coat effect

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether elevated clinic blood pressure compared with daytime ambulatory blood pressure, referred to as the white-coat effect, is associated with anxiety and increased blood pressure expectancy in the doctor's office. METHODS: The 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurements and physicians' blood pressure measurements were obtained in 226 normotensive and hypertensive study participants. Anxiety levels were assessed multiple times during the clinic visit using a Visual Analog Scale. Participants' expectations regarding the clinic visit were assessed using a six-item scale (Expectations of Outcomes Scale). The white-coat effect was computed as the difference between the mean clinic blood pressure and the mean daytime ambulatory blood pressure. Multiple regression analysis was performed to examine the association between anxiety, outcome expectations and the white-coat effect, adjusting for age, sex, and ambulatory blood pressure level. RESULTS: As predicted, outcome expectations and anxiety during the clinic visit were significantly associated with the white-coat effect. Results of the regression analysis indicated that only expectancy had an independent effect on the systolic white-coat effect; however, both anxiety and expectancy had independent effects on the diastolic white-coat effect. CONCLUSION: Our results provide empirical support to the hypothesis that anxiety and blood pressure expectancy may elevate clinic blood pressure.     

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and clinical characteristics of the true and white-coat resistant hypertension

The resistant hypertension has been differentiated in true resistant hypertension and white-coat resistant hypertension by using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. White-coat resistant hypertension was defined as high clinic blood pressure, despite triple treatment for at least 3 months, but day-time blood pressure values < 135/85 mmHg. The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence of different clinical characteristics between two types of resistant hypertension. The study group consisted of 49 patients with essential hypertension, resistant to an adequate and appropriate triple-drug therapy, that included a diuretic, with all 3 drugs prescribed in near maximal doses and that had persistently elevated clinic blood pressure (> 140/90 mm Hg), for at least 3 months. They represented the 2% of 2500 hypertensive outpatients that referred at our Hypertension Unit. Patients with white-coat resistant hypertension (n=19) were older (p<0.05) than those with true resistant hypertension (n=30). The sodium intake (p<0.05) and alcohol intake (p<0.05) were significantly higher in patients with true resistant hypertension than in those with white-coat resistant hypertension. The renin plasma activity and plasma aldosterone were higher (p<0.05) in patients with true resistant hypertension than in those with white-coat resistant hypertension with normal plasma electrolyte balance. There were no significant differences in mean values of office systolic and diastolic blood pressures between white coat resistant hypertensives and true resistant hypertensives (165+17 vs 172+28 and 98+12 vs 102+14 mmHg). Day-time and night-time ambulatory 24-h-systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly higher in the true resistant hypertensive patients when compared with white-coat resistant hypertensives (153+15 vs 124+10 mmHg and 97+9 vs 76+6 mmHg all p<0.001). Day-time and night-time ambulatory 24-h-heart rate were significantly higher in the true resistant hypertensive patients when compared with white-coat resistant hypertensives (79+11 vs 71+9 beats/min; p<0.01; 68+9 vs 60+6 beats/min, p<0.001). The ABP readings were analysed by a Fourier series with 4 harmonics. According to the runs test both two groups of patients showed a circadian rhythm for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The nocturnal fall in SBP, DBP and HR was not different in both groups of patients. In conclusion, our findings showed that true resistant hypertensive patients were characterized both by higher heart rate and higher plasma renin activity values as an expression of a possible increased sympathetic activity. Thus, the combination of ABPM with the assessment of the clinical characteristics allow to differentiate better the true drug-resistant hypertension from the white coat resistant hypertension.     

Analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: the problem of 'white-coat' hypertension, responders and non-responders

OBJECTIVE: To analyse a randomized study undertaken to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of dihydropyridine calcium antagonists in patients with essential hypertension. METHOD: Blood pressure was measured both conventionally by a doctor and by non-invasive ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: During amlodipine therapy (5 mg once a day for 4 weeks, n = 121), the mean daytime diastolic blood pressure was lowered by 8.2+/-7.1 and 0.9+/-7.4 mmHg (means +/- SD) in patients with a pretreatment daytime diastolic blood pressure >/= 90 (n = 89) and < 90 mmHg (n = 32), respectively. In 60 (67%) among the 89 patients who had an initial daytime diastolic blood pressure >/= 90 mmHg the daytime diastolic blood pressure was lowered by >/= 5 mmHg, with a mean fall of 12.0+/- 5.2 mmHg. The decrease in daytime diastolic blood pressure averaged 0.6+/- 3.5 mmHg in the remaining non-responder patients (n = 29). CONCLUSION:It seems important to evaluate the efficacy of a given antihypertensive drug by analysing patients with white-coat hypertension separately from responders to the medication. This allows one to gain maximum information concerning the effect of therapy in the individual hypertensive patients.     

Cardiovascular risk in white-coat and sustained hypertensive patients

We compared cardiovascular outcome between patients with white-coat and sustained hypertension who had previously participated in the Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Treatment of Hypertension (APTH) trial. Baseline characteristics, including office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP), were measured during the 2-month run-in period of the APTH trial. During follow-up, information on the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure), achieved office BP and treatment status was obtained. At entry, 326 patients had sustained hypertension (daytime ambulatory BP ≥140 mmHg systolic and/or ≥90 mmHg diastolic) and 93 had daytime ambulatory BP below these limits and were classified as white-coat hypertensives. During 2088 patientyears of follow-up (median follow-up 5.3 years), all major cardiovascular events ( n = 22) occurred in the patients with sustained hypertension (rate 12.7 per 1000 patient-years, p = 0.02 for between-group difference). Furthermore, multiple Cox regression confirmed that after adjustment for important covariables, daytime ambulatory BP - but not office BP at entry - significantly and independently predicted cardiovascular outcome. After additional adjustment for office BP, daytime ambulatory BP still predicted the occurrence of major cardiovascular events. Although white-coat hypertension was less frequently associated with antihypertensive drug treatment during follow-up, it carried a significantly better prognosis than sustained hypertension.     

Relation between exercise-induced hypertension and sustained hypertension in adult patients after successful repair of aortic coarctation

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether exercise-induced hypertension in successfully repaired adult post-coarctectomy patients is associated with hypertension on 24-h blood pressure measurement and increased left ventricular mass. METHODS: One hundred and forty-four consecutive post-coarctectomy patients (mean age 31.5 years, range 17-74 years; mean age at repair 7.9 years, range 0-45 years) from three tertiary referral centres were studied using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, treadmill exercise testing and echocardiography. RESULTS: Of the 144 patients, 27 (19%) were known to have sustained hypertension, based on their history, and all were on antihypertensive medication. However, 32 (27%) of the remaining 117 patients showed elevated mean daytime systolic blood pressure readings at 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (systolic blood pressure > or = 140 mmHg). Of the remaining 85 patients with normal mean daytime systolic blood pressure, 18 patients (21%) had exercise-induced hypertension (maximal exercise systolic blood pressure > 200 mmHg). Mean daytime systolic blood pressure was higher in the exercise-induced hypertensive patients compared to the normotensive patients with normal exercise blood pressure (134 +/- 5 versus 129 +/- 7 mmHg, P = 0.008). By multivariate analysis, both maximal exercise systolic blood pressure (P = 0.007) and resting systolic blood pressure (P < 0.0001) were independently associated with mean daytime systolic blood pressure. Maximal exercise systolic blood pressure had no independent predictive value for left ventricular mass (P = 0.132). CONCLUSIONS: In adult post-coarctectomy patients, maximal exercise systolic blood pressure is independently associated with mean daytime systolic blood pressure at ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. In this study no independent predictive value of maximal exercise systolic blood pressure for left ventricular mass could be demonstrated.