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

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

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.     

Home blood pressure is as reliable as ambulatory blood pressure in predicting target-organ damage in hypertension

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess the value of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in comparison to office BP measurements and ambulatory monitoring in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage. METHODS: Sixty-eight untreated patients with hypertension with at least two routine prestudy office visits were included (mean age, 48.6 +/- 9.1 [SD] years; 50 men). Office BP was measured in two study visits, home BP was measured for 6 workdays, and ambulatory BP was monitored for 24 h. All BP measurements were obtained using validated electronic devices. Target-organ damage was assessed by measuring the echocardiographic left-ventricular mass index (LVMI), urinary albumin excretion rate (AER) in two overnight urine collections, and carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (PWV) (Complior device; Colson, Garges-les-Gonesse, Paris, France). RESULTS: The correlation coefficients of LVMI with office BP were 0.24/0.15 (systolic/diastolic), with home BP 0.35/0.21 (systolic, P < .01), and with 24-h ambulatory BP 0.23/0.19, awake 0.21/0.16, and asleep 0.28/0.26 (asleep, both P < .05). The correlation coefficients of AER with office BP were 0.24/0.31 (diastolic, P < .05), with home BP 0.28/0.26 (both P < .05), and with 24-h ambulatory BP 0.25/0.24, awake 0.24/0.25 (diastolic, P < .05), and asleep 0.26/0.18 (systolic, P < .05). There was a trend for negative correlations between PWV and diastolic BP measurements (not significant). In multiple-regression models assessing independent predictors of each of the three indices of target-organ damage, systolic home BP and age were the only independent predictors of increased LVMI that reached borderline statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that home BP is as reliable as ambulatory monitoring in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage, and is superior to carefully taken office measurements.     

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population based study

BACKGROUND: Information on the relationship between ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease in the general population is sparse. METHODS: Prospective study of a random sample of 1700 Danish men and women, aged 41 to 72 years, without major cardiovascular diseases. At baseline, ambulatory BP, office BP, and other risk factors were recorded. The end point was a combined end point consisting of cardiovascular mortality, ischemic heart disease, and stroke. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 9.5 years, 156 end points were recorded. In multivariate models, the relative risk (95% confidence interval) associated with increments of 10/5 mmHg of systolic/diastolic ambulatory BP were 1.35 (1.21-1.50) and 1.27 (1.16-1.39). The corresponding figures for office BP were 1.18 (1.09-1.29) and 1.11 (1.03-1.19). Compared with normotension (office BP <140/90 mm Hg; daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg) the relative risks associated with isolated office hypertension (office BP >/=140/90 mm Hg; daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg), isolated ambulatory hypertension (office BP <140/90 mm Hg; daytime BP >/=135/85 mm Hg), and sustained hypertension (office BP >/=140/90 mm Hg; daytime BP >/=135/85 mm Hg) were 0.66 (0.30-1.44), 1.52 (0.91-2.54), and 2.10 (1.45-3.06), respectively. A blunted BP decrease at night was a risk factor (P = .02) in subjects with daytime ambulatory hypertension, but not in subjects with daytime ambulatory normotension (P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory BP provided prognostic information about cardiovascular disease better than office BP. Isolated office hypertension was not a risk factor and isolated ambulatory hypertension tended to be associated with increased risk. A blunted BP decrease at night was a risk factor in subjects with daytime ambulatory hypertension.     

Comparison of awake ambulatory blood pressure and automated office blood pressure using linear regression analysis in untreated patients in routine clinical practice

The recent American hypertension guidelines recommended a threshold of 130/80 mmHg to define hypertension on the basis of office, home or ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Despite recognizing the potential advantages of automated office (AO)BP, the recommendations only considered conventional office BP, without providing supporting evidence and without taking into account the well documented difference between office BP recorded in research studies versus routine clinical practice, the latter being about 10/7 mmHg higher. Accordingly, we examined the relationship between AOBP and awake ambulatory BP, which the guidelines considered to be a better predictor of future cardiovascular risk than office BP. AOBP readings and 24‐hour ambulatory BP recordings were obtained in 514 untreated patients referred for ambulatory BP monitoring in routine clinical practice. The relationship between mean AOBP and mean awake ambulatory BP was examined using linear regression analysis with and without adjustment for age and sex. Special attention was given to the thresholds of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg, the latter value being the recognized threshold for defining hypertension using awake ambulatory BP, home BP and AOBP in other guidelines. The mean adjusted AOBP of 130/80 and 135/85 mmHg corresponded to mean awake ambulatory BP values of 132.1/81.5 and 134.4/84.6 mmHg, respectively. These findings support the use of AOBP as the method of choice for determining office BP in routine clinical practice, regardless of which of the two thresholds are used for diagnosing hypertension, with an AOBP of 135/85 mmHg being somewhat closer to the corresponding value for awake ambulatory BP.     

Low ambulatory blood pressure is associated with lower cognitive function in healthy elderly men

INTRODUCTION: Low blood pressure (BP) has been found to be associated with cerebrovascular damage in the elderly. Studies of the relation of ambulatory BP to cognitive function in elderly persons aged 80 years or above is lacking, however. METHODS: Ninety-seven 81-year-old men from the population study 'Men born in 1914' underwent ambulatory BP monitoring and were given a cognitive test battery, 79 subjects completing all six tests. Low ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) was defined as <130 mmHg and low ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) as <80 mmHg (corresponding in terms of office BP to approximately <140 and <90 mmHg, respectively). Odds ratios (OR) for lower cognitive function were calculated using a forward stepwise logistic regression model, controlling for confounding factors. RESULTS: Subjects with ambulatory SBP <130 mmHg had higher OR values for daytime (OR 2.6; P=0.037), nighttime (OR 3.6; P=0.032) and 24h (OR 2.6; P=0.038) BP measurements. A lower cognitive function was associated with lower nighttime SBP and DBP levels and lower 24-h mean SBP compared to subjects with higher cognitive function. OR values connected to low nocturnal SBP, had a tendency to be particularly high among subjects on anti-hypertensive drugs (OR 9.1; P=0.067, n.s.). CONCLUSION: Ambulatory SBP levels <130 mmHg and lower nighttime SBP and DBP were associated with lower cognitive function in healthy elderly men. Further investigation is needed to ascertain the effects of the presently recommended treatment goal of <140 mmHg for office SBP also on elderly over 80 years of age.     

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.     

Office blood pressure measurements overestimate blood pressure control in renal transplant patients

OBJECTIVE: As hypertension is an important risk factor for renal allograft failure, we aimed to assess blood pressure control in renal transplant patients with deteriorating graft function using different methods of blood pressure measurements. METHODS: Forty-nine patients with a graft survival of >1 year, and with more than a two-fold increase in urinary albumin excretion, and/or an increase in serum creatinine level >20% during the previous 12 months, were included. Office blood pressure and home BP were measured, and ambulatory blood pressures were obtained in all patients. RESULTS: The mean office blood pressure (133.2+/-16.3/81.7+/-9.6 mmHg) and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (133.1+/-12.0/79.8+/-8.3 mmHg) were similar. Home blood pressure in the morning (144.2+/-23.3/87.1+/-12.7 mmHg) and evening (143.2+/-20.6/86.4+/-10.3 mmHg) were significantly higher than ambulatory blood pressure (P<0.001 for both). Only 18% of the patients exhibited a reduction of >or=10% in systolic blood pressure during nighttime while 39% had an overt rise. Adequate blood pressure control was found in 53% of the patients using office blood pressure (<140/90 mmHg), contrasting 29% using home blood pressure (<135/85 mmHg), and 16% using mean 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (<125/80 mmHg). These findings were substantiated by the use of receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Using the 24-h blood pressure as a standard, home blood pressure was superior to office blood pressure in estimating blood pressure control in renal transplant patients. Nocturnal hypertension, however, was observed frequently, adding important clinical information about blood pressure control in this high-risk population.     

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

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

Superiority of ambulatory to physician blood pressure is not an artifact of differential measurement reliability

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory blood pressure is a better predictor of target organ damage and the risk of adverse cardiovascular events than office measurements. Whether this is due to the greater reliability owing to the larger number of measurements that are usually taken using ambulatory monitoring, or the greater validity of these measurements independent of the number, remains controversial. METHODS: We addressed this issue by comparing physician readings and ambulatory measurements as predictors of left ventricular mass index. The number of readings was controlled by using the average of three physician readings and randomly selecting three awake readings from a 24-h ambulatory recording. RESULTS: In a multiple regression analysis that included both the ambulatory and physician blood pressure measurements, only the ambulatory systolic measurements significantly predicted left ventricular mass index (B=0.37, t=3.11, P=0.002); the coefficient for physician's systolic measurements was essentially zero (B=-0.01, t=-0.26, NS). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the superiority of ambulatory blood pressure as a predictor of target organ damage, compared with physician measurements, cannot be adequately/fully explained by the impact of the larger number of measurements obtained with ambulatory monitoring.     

White coat effect in treated and untreated patients with high office blood pressure. Relationship with pulse wave velocity and left ventricular mass index.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in hypertensive patients whether the white coat effect is associated with target-organ damage and whether it is modified by anti-hypertensive therapy. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study we evaluated blood pressure (BP) measured in the office and by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) as an index of aortic stiffness, and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in 88 subjects (aged 49 +/- 2 years) with white-coat hypertension (WCH, office BP > 140/90, daytime BP < 130/84 mmHg), 31 under antihypertensive therapy, 57 untreated, and in 115 patients with office and ambulatory hypertension (HT, aged 51 +/- 2 years, office BP > 140/90, daytime BP > 135/85), 65 under antihypertensive therapy, 50 untreated. In a longitudinal study in 15 patients with HT and in 11 patients with WCH we evaluated the influence of antihypertensive therapy (> 6 months) on office and ambulatory BP and on PWV. RESULTS: The intensity of the white coat effect (office BP-daytime BP) was greater in WCH than in HT. Taking all subjects, the white coat effect did not correlate with PWV (r = 0.08, ns) or with LVMI (r = 0.01, ns), whereas daytime BP correlated significantly with PWV (r = 0.41, p < 0.01) and with LVMI (r = 0.32, p < 0.05). WCH subjects showed lower PWV and LVMI than HT subjects. Treated and untreated WCH, with similar office and daytime BP, showed similar values of PWV and LVMI. Treated and untreated HT showed similar office BP values but treated HT showed lower daytime BP and PWV values. In the longitudinal study, antihypertensive therapy significantly reduced daytime BP and PWV values in the 15 HTs, whereas in the 11 WCH it did not alter daytime BP or PWV values. CONCLUSIONS: 1. In both WCH and HT (treated and untreated) the intensity of the white coat effect does not reflect either the severity of hypertension measured by target organ damage or the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment. 2. In WCH antihypertensive therapy does not improve either ambulatory BP values or damage to target organs.     

Masked nocturnal hypertension and target organ damage in hypertensives with well-controlled self-measured home blood pressure.

It has been reported that masked hypertension, a state in which patients show normal clinic blood pressure (BP) but elevated out-of-clinic BP by self-measured home BP, is a predictor of cardiovascular morbidity much like sustained hypertension. In addition, nocturnal BP is closely associated with cardiovascular disease. This might mean that ambulatory and self-measured home BP monitoring each provide independent information. We performed ambulatory BP monitoring, self-measured home BP monitoring, echocardiography and carotid ultrasonography in 165 community-dwelling subjects. We subclassified the patients according to the ambulatory and self-measured home BP levels as follows: in the masked nocturnal hypertension group, the self-measured home BP level was <135/85 mmHg and the ambulatory nocturnal BP level was >or=120/75 mmHg; in the normotensive group, the self-measured home BP level was <135/85 mmHg and the ambulatory nocturnal BP level was <120/75 mmHg. The intima-media thickness (IMT) and relative wall thickness (RWT) were greater in the masked nocturnal hypertension group than in the normotensive group (IMT: 0.76+/-0.20 vs. 0.64+/-0.14 mm, p<0.05; RWT: 0.50+/-0.14 vs. 0.41+/-0.10, p<0.05). Even in hypertensives with well-controlled self-measured home BP, elevated ambulatory nocturnal BP might promote target organ damage. We must rule out masked hypertension using self-measured home BP monitoring, and we might also need to rule out nocturnal masked hypertension using ambulatory BP monitoring.     

The epidemiology of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in Japan

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is now being used widely in Japan. Several Japanese studies have value demonstrated that the ambulatory blood pressure is superior to the casual blood pressure in prediction of target organ damage. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring has also been reported to be more cost effective than are casual blood pressure measurements. Nonetheless, no agreement has been reached regarding its use in clinical settings. This problem has arisen partly because no reference for ambulatory blood pressure value has been established. We reviewed several cross-sectional studies and one prospective study performed in Japan and propose tentatively a reference ambulatory blood pressure value for Japanese: 135/80 mmHg. Further prospective studies are needed in order to confirm this value in different community settings and with different prognostic parameters.     

Is ambulatory blood pressure monitoring reliable in hypertensive patients with atrial fibrillation?]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is commonly seen in patients (pts) with systemic hypertension. They are usually excluded from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) because its accuracy is unknown. The aim of our study was to determine if ABPM can be used to assess 24 hour BP in pts with AF. We included hypertensive pts with chronic (> 6 months) AF, controlled heart rate (60-100 c.p.m), under therapy and also hypertensive pts in sinus rhythm (control group--CG). They were submitted to 24 hour ABPM (Spacelabs 90207). Manual BP with a standard mercury sphygmomanometer was taken during 3 visits (office BP) and on the day of ambulatory monitoring. Simultaneous measurements with a T-Tube were also performed. Thirty pts with chronic AF (63% males), mean age 73 +/- 8 years (52-85) and 18 pts in sinus rhythm (CG) were studied. The age, gender, office BP, ambulatory BP and proportion of successful measurements was similar in the 2 groups. In CG systolic and diastolic office BP did not differ from day ambulatory BP (148 +/- 14/84 +/- 7 vs 138 +/- 18/76 +/- 11 mmHg) and the same was seen in pts in AF (table). In this group, only the systolic BP taken immediately before the ambulatory device was put on, was significantly different from day ambulatory BP (148 +/- 21 vs 137 +/- 19 mmHg, p = 0.04). The proportion of successful measurements in AF group was 94 +/- 8 (65-98) with 93% > 80%. In 64 simultaneous measurements the differences were 6 +/- 5 and 5 +/- 5 mmHg for systolic and diastolic BP. Casual and ambulatory heart rate was also similar in the two groups (76 +/- 7/76 +/- 12--AF group; 78 +/- 10/78 +/- 8--control group). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that ABPM can be used to assess BP in patients with atrial fibrillation. There was a high percentage of successful recordings (93%). As in patients in sinus rhythm, there was no significantly difference in mean office blood pressure and daytime ambulatory blood pressure.     

Daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure is more effective at predicting mortality than clinic blood pressure

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic value of daytime ambulatory blood pressure compared with routine clinic blood pressure in determining mortality. METHODS: Prospective multicentre study in 48 general practices in Oxfordshire, a hypertension clinic in Oxford and a hypertension clinic in London. RESULTS: A cohort of 10 129 patients from Oxford and London was followed up for a median of 8.2 years. Nine hundred and one deaths were recorded (8.9%) corresponding to a mortality rate per 1000 years of follow-up of 10.8 (99% confidence interval 9.9-11.8). Comparing the highest quartile for systolic ambulatory blood pressure with the lowest (>or=160 vs. <135 mmHg) gives an estimated age sex-adjusted hazard ratio for mortality of 1.51 (95% confidence interval 1.25-1.83, P<0.001). The corresponding comparison for clinic systolic blood pressure (>or=174 vs. <148 mmHg) results in a hazard ratio of 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.24, P=0.9). Comparing ambulatory versus clinic systolic blood pressure (10 mmHg groupings) using nested statistical modelling, removal of the ambulatory blood pressure term from the baseline Cox model (nine 10 mmHg categories) resulted in a highly significant likelihood ratio test statistic of 52.5 (df=8, P<0.0001). The corresponding result for removal of the clinic blood pressure term was 18.1 (df=8, P=0.02), thus reinforcing the finding that ambulatory blood pressure monitoring has greater prognostic significance. Ambulatory blood pressure was also a better predictor of all-cause mortality both in patients taking medication and those not taking medication at the time of monitoring. CONCLUSION: Daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a much better prognostic indicator of all-cause mortality than clinic blood pressure.     

Rosiglitazone reduces office and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure following 1-year treatment in non-diabetic subjects with insulin resistance

OBJECTIVE: Rosiglitazone (RSG) has been reported to reduce blood pressure (BP) in patients with type-2 diabetes, but similar effects in non-diabetic people with insulin resistance is less clear. Our aim was to test the long-term BP-lowering effects of RSG compared with placebo. METHODS: We recruited participants for BP evaluation of RSG treatment from a larger intervention trial. Office BP was recorded in 355 non-diabetic subjects with insulin resistance randomized to receive either RSG or placebo for 52 weeks. Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM; Spacelab 90207) was performed in a subgroup of 24 subjects (RSG: n = 11; placebo n = 13). RESULTS: After 1 year, the office BP decreased by -3.1 mmHg systolic (p<0.05) and -3.8 mmHg diastolic (p<0.001) in the RSG group versus placebo. In patients treated with RSG, at 1 year there was a trend for a reduction from baseline for mean 24-h diastolic BP (DBP), daytime DBP and night-time DBP (-4.39, -5.26 and -2.93 mmHg, respectively). However, only daytime DBP was significantly lower in the RSG group compared with control (adjusted mean difference: -4.41 mmHg, p = 0.007). There was also a non-significant trend for a reduction in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP), daytime SBP and night-time SBP (-2.70, -2.51 and -3.35 mmHg, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: RSG treatment for 1 year was associated with a small but significant decrease in diastolic 24-h ambulatory diastolic BP, and both systolic and diastolic office BPs in non-diabetic people with insulin resistance.     

Significance of mean blood pressure for blood pressure control

The significance of pulse pressure (PP) and mean blood pressure (MBP) for blood pressure (BP) control is unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between PP and MBP and BP control. We obtained home BP measurements for 117 patients aged 40-75 years with either office systolic BP (SBP) >or= 140 mmHg or office diastolic BP (DBP) >or= 90 mmHg. Patients were treated with 1 to 2 antihypertensive drugs for 6 months to achieve home SBP < 135 mmHg and home DBP < 85 mmHg. At follow-up, 72 patients were taking a single drug with good BP control, 23 were taking two drugs with good BP control, and 22 were taking two drugs without good BP control. Although office SBP and DBP at baseline were similar in the three groups, home SBP and DBP at baseline in the single drug group were lowest among the three groups (P < 0.01). Home MBP at baseline in the single drug group was lowest among the three groups (P < 0.01). Home PP at baseline was highest in the two-drug without good control group (P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only home MBP at baseline was significantly correlated with a lack of BP control. Home MBP rather than home PP is associated with achieving adequate BP control.     

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

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

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

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

Home blood pressure monitoring in addition to office blood pressure determination is useful in patients with systolic hypertension before their inclusion into a drug trial

OBJECTIVE: In patients with uncontrolled systolic hypertension, to estimate the value of home blood pressure monitoring in addition to office blood pressure for inclusion in a trial. METHODS: 80 patients with systolic hypertension, defined as SBP > or =140 mmHg and pulse pressure > or =60 mmHg, were treated for 4 weeks with a thiazide diuretic at usual dose (25 mg HCTZ or 1.5 mg indapamide or methyclothiazide 5 mg). Blood pressure was measured using an automatic monitor (Omron M6) at office and at home in the 3 days prior the visit. Subjects with an uncontrolled hypertension were included in the second part of the trial only if there fulfilled inclusion criteria: office SBP > or =140 mmHg and home SBP > or =135 mmHg (mean of 18 measurements obtained on 3 consecutive days) and office pulse pressure > or =60 mmHg. RESULTS: After 4 weeks with diuretic treatment, 62% of patients fulfilled 3 criteria and were included in the second part of the trial. It was observed 76% of patients with office SBP > or =140 mmHg, 72% with office pulse pressure > or =60 mmHg and 70% with both office SBP and PP criteria. However, only 67% of patients had home SBP > or =135 mmHg. Discrepancy between office and home SBP was observed and subjects with a white coat hypertension was noticed in 14% and masked hypertension in 5%. CONCLUSION: If patients with systolic hypertension have to be included into a drug trial because there are uncontrolled, home blood pressure monitoring in addition to office blood pressure is a very useful criteria for inclusion because misclassifications due to white coat or masked hypertension is frequent in these patients.