动态血压监测中第一小时白大衣现象研究

目的探讨动态血压监测中存在的第1小时白大衣现象及其影响。方法选择2004-2005年门诊和病房住院的患者共626例（其中男性369例,女性257例）年龄范围13～90岁,平均年龄为（55．0±13．7）岁。所有观察对象测量诊室血压,在上午8：30—9：29之间开始监测24小时动态血压,将此期间检测的3次血压平均值作为第1小时血压。结果所有观察对象第1小时的平均收缩压和舒张压显著高于23h、白天、夜间和最后1H的平均水平（P〈0．01）,在不同年龄、性别组人群中也同样存在此种现象。女性中自大衣现象显著高于男性[第1小时平均血压一白天平均血压：女性：（9．5±13．4／6．0±7．8）mmHg（1mmHg：0．133kPa）;男性：（5．5±11．9／4．2±7．8）mmHg,P〈0．01],而各年龄组间差异无统计学意义。结论动态血压监测中,普遍存在着明显的第1小时内血压升高的现象,建议在临床上判断血压水平和诊断中,删除第1小时的记录数据,以便更加准确客观地反映患者的真实血压水平,在临床药物疗效观察评价及科学研究中尤其重要。     

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.     

White coat effect of alcohol

Numerous studies have shown a relationship between alcohol intake and elevated clinic blood pressures (BP). However, there have been few studies on the relationship between alcohol consumption and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. This study aimed to determine the relationship between alcohol intake, clinic BP, and 24-h ambulatory BP recordings to determine to what extent a white coat effect may contribute to the relationship between alcohol consumption and BP. Clinical BP and 24-h ambulatory BP were measured in 121 male volunteers aged 50.6 +/- 9.8 years (range, 30-70 years) who consumed between 0 and 2050 g of alcohol per week (mean, 394 +/- 342 g; median, 385 g/week). Supine clinical systolic BP (SBP) was significantly related to alcohol intake (beta = 0.242; P = .007). Alcohol consumption was not related to 24-h mean SBP or diastolic BP (DBP), daytime SBP or DBP, or nighttime SBP or DBP (daytime SBP: beta = 0.02, P = .802). Alcohol intake was significantly related to the difference between clinic SBP and mean daytime SBP (beta = 0.260, P = .004). Twenty-four-hour mean heart rate (HR), daytime mean and nighttime mean HR were strongly associated with alcohol intake (24-h HR: beta = 0.455, P < .001). These results suggest that the association between alcohol consumption and elevated BP is contributed to by a significant white coat effect and that excessive alcohol consumption may be a significant factor in explaining differences between clinic and ambulatory BP measurements.     

Factors influencing white-coat effect

BACKGROUND: The transient blood pressure (BP) rise during clinical visits is usually referred to as white-coat effect (WCE). The aim of the present study was to investigate factors that may influence the WCE. METHODS: A total of 2004 subjects underwent office BP measurements and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) on the same day. The WCE was estimated as the difference between office and average daytime ambulatory BP (ABP). According to the office and daytime BP values, the study population was divided into normotensives (NTs), white-coat hypertensives (WCHs), masked hypertensives (MHTs), and sustained hypertensives (SHTs). Statistical analyses were performed using one-way analysis of variance and multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: The mean systolic and diastolic WCE was 9 +/- 16 and 7 +/- 12 mm Hg, respectively. In the entire group of patients, multiple linear regression models revealed independent determinants of systolic WCE in the following rank order: office systolic BP (SBP) (beta = 0.727; P < 0.001), female gender (beta = 0.166; P < 0.001), daytime SBP variability (beta = 0.128; P < 0.001), age (beta = 0.039, P = 0.020), and smoking (beta = 0.031, P = 0.048). A 1.0 mm Hg increase in daytime SBP variability correlated with an increment of 0.589 mm Hg (95% confidence intervals, 0.437-0.741) in the systolic WCE. The regression analyses for diastolic WCE revealed the same factors as independent determinants. A 1.0 mm Hg increase in daytime diastolic BP (DBP) variability was independently associated with an increment of 0.418 mm Hg (95% confidence intervals, 0.121-0.715) in the diastolic WCE. CONCLUSIONS: Factors such as gender, age, smoking, office BPV and daytime BPV may exert an important influence on the magnitude of the WCE.     

The effects of the spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor fostamatinib on ambulatory blood pressure in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of the OSKIRA-ABPM (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) randomized trial

Clinical trials of fostamatinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis showed blood pressure (BP) elevation using clinic measurements. The OSKIRA-ambulatory BP monitoring trial assessed the effect of fostamatinib on 24–hour ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. One hundred thirty–five patients were randomized to fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily (bid; n = 68) or placebo bid (n = 67) for 28 days. Ambulatory, clinic, and home BPs were measured at baseline and after 28 days of therapy. Primary end point was change from baseline in 24–hour mean SBP. Fostamatinib increased 24–hour mean SBP by 2.9 mm Hg (P = .023) and diastolic BP (DBP) by 3.5 mm Hg (P < .001) versus placebo. Clinic/home-measured BPs were similar to those observed with ambulatory BP monitoring. After treatment discontinuation (1 week), clinic BP values returned to baseline levels. Fostamatinib induced elevations in 24–hour mean ambulatory SBP and DBP. BP elevations resolved with fostamatinib discontinuation.     

Rate of morning increase in blood pressure is elevated in hypertensives

BACKGROUND: We applied a new logistic curve fitting procedure to ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) recordings to determine whether the rate of increase in systolic (SBP), mean (MBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR) in the morning is related to the level of BP in subjects. METHODS: The rate of transition in the morning and evening period was determined using a six-parameter double-logistic equation applied to 528 ABP recordings from a cardiovascular risk assessment clinic. Based on daytime BP (MBP, SBP, or DBP), the upper quartile (UQ, n = 132) and lower quartile (LQ) were compared. RESULTS: Subjects in the UQ of daytime MBP were hypertensive and showed greater day-night differences compared to normotensive subjects in the LQ (29 +/- 1 mm Hg for MBP compared to 20 +/- 1 mm Hg). The rate of morning increase in SBP and DBP was 42% and 30% greater in UQ subjects compared to the LQ subjects (P < .05). The rates of evening decrease in all BPs were 69% to 84% greater in the subjects in the UQ. Similar results were obtained if subjects were divided according to daytime SBP or DBP. The rate of morning increase in MBP was correlated with daytime BP, but not night-time or 24 h MBP. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of morning increase in BP is greater in those subjects with the highest daytime BP. The exaggerated rate of morning increase in BP in this group, which were all hypertensive, may also be important for greater cardiovascular risk.     

Treated hypertension and the white coat phenomenon: Office readings are inadequate measures of efficacy

To better define the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and to estimate the magnitude of white coat effect (WCE), before and after antihypertensive therapy, we gathered data from an open-label forced-titration study of a combination of antihypertensive drugs that was titrated sequentially, in the order amlodipine, olmesartan, and hydrochlorothiazide, over an 18-week period among 187 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. WCH was defined as daytime ambulatory blood pressure (BP) of 135/85 mm Hg or less, but clinic BP of 140/90 mm Hg or more. WCE was obtained as the mean difference between clinic and daytime ambulatory BP. At baseline, the prevalence of WCH was 12%; all but one subject had WCE of >10/5 mm Hg. After treatment, the prevalence of WCH had increased to 39% (P < .001). In the overall population, at baseline, the mean (±SD) WCE for systolic BP was 10.4 ± 10.9 mm Hg and 3.7 ± 8.6 mm Hg for diastolic BP. After treatment, the reduction in systolic WCE was 3.01 ± 0.93 (SE; P < .0001); no reduction was seen for diastolic WCE. Among patients treated with amlodipine-olmesartan combination, WCE at baseline was 11 mm Hg systolic and was attenuated to -0.9 mm Hg. Among patients treated with amlodipine-olmesartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination, systolic WCE was similar at baseline (10.1 mm Hg) and at end of therapy (8.1 mm Hg). Mean systolic difference between dual and triple therapy of 9.9 mm Hg, SE 2.98 was significant (P < .001). The drop in diastolic WCE from 6.4 with dual therapy to -1.2 with triple therapy was also significant (mean difference 7.6, SE 2.2; P < .001). In conclusion, the prevalence of WCH increases three-fold with treatment as a result of fewer patients having sustained hypertension. Thus, out-of-office BP monitoring especially among treated hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes is necessary to provide better assessment of overall BP and response to treatment.     

Diagnosis of white coat hypertension by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

White coat hypertension (WCH) is common in referred hypertensive patients. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is not free from the white coat syndrome. We examined the use of the elevation of the first and last measurements of ABPM for diagnosis of WCH in a hypertensive population that had been referred to a hospital-based hypertension unit. Data were obtained on 1350 patients for clinic and ABPM parameters. WCH, as diagnosed by conventional clinic blood pressure (BP) measurement, was compared with a variety of alternative methods determined from ABPM. In all cases, mean daytime pressure was <135 mm Hg/85 mm Hg with an elevation of clinic BP >/=140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic. The definitions tested for this elevation were first hour mean pressure, first reading, maximum reading in first hour, last hour mean pressure, last reading, maximum reading in the last hour and maximum reading in first or last hour. Elevation of the maximum pressure in the first hour or last hour above 140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic showed a high level of agreement (kappa=0.91) with classical WCH for diagnosis of the white coat syndrome. Termed ambulatory white coat hypertension, patients with this finding were older than classic white coat patients and had higher daytime (127+/-6/78+/-5 mm Hg versus 121+/-5.5/74+/-6 mm Hg, P<0.005 for systolic and diastolic) and nighttime (114+/-11/67+/-8 mm Hg versus 106+/-9/61+/-6 mm Hg, P<0.005 for systolic and diastolic) pressures. They also had a significantly greater Sokolow-Lyon index (leads V(1)+V(5), 21+/-7 mV versus 18+/-6 mV). Elevation of BP above 140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic in the first or last hour of monitoring diagnoses patients with a white coat response in whom there is a higher BP profile than in patients with classic white coat response alone. We suggest, therefore, that this is a better measure of the white coat phenomenon.     

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: which arm?

To determine the effects of routinely selecting the nondominant arm for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) on estimates of patients' blood pressure (BP) and to evaluate the practise of using manual BP from one arm and ambulatory BP from the other on the estimation of white coat effect (WCE), an observational study was conducted in 10 volunteers, exhibiting an interarm resting clinic systolic BP (SBP) difference > or =10 mm Hg. The main outcome measures were: (i) average ambulatory SBP measured on right and left arm simultaneously during 24 h, and (ii) estimate of WCE derived, by current practise, as the difference between the referral clinic BP (the higher of the manual readings from both arms) and ambulatory non-dominant arm BP, contrasted with the WCE calculated as the difference between clinic and ambulatory readings from the same arm (the arm with the higher manual readings). The supine referral clinic SBP was 16+/-6 mm Hg higher in the right compared with the left arm. Average 24 h ambulatory SBP was 6+/-7 mm Hg higher in the right arm (range +17 to -3 mm Hg), P = 0.025. Diastolic BP measurements mirrored the systolic findings. One-third of the WCE, estimated by current practise, could be attributed to inconsistency in the choice of arm for BP measurement. Thus, inconsistency in the selection of arms for BP measurement, by different techniques, may confound estimation of patients' cardiovascular morbidity risk.     

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.     

Determinants of the White‐Coat Effect in Normotensives and Never‐Treated Mild Hypertensives

The prognostic significance of the white‐coat effect (WCE) is unclear. Knowledge of the predictors of the WCE may help illuminate the clinical significance of this phenomenon. The purpose of this study was to (i) compare characteristics of subjects demonstrating a WCE, those not demonstrating a WCE, and those demonstrating a reverse WCE and (ii) determine clinical features that may influence the size of the WCE. Forty‐one subjects with normotension or mild hypertension who had never been treated with antihypertensive medications were recruited for the study. All subjects underwent a battery of anthropometrical measurements and clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements. To calculate arterial compliance, impedance cardiography was used to measure resting stroke volume in each subject. All subjects performed a laboratory mental stress protocol to determine the size of the BP reactivity. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) profiles were studied in each subject with the use of an oscillometric ABP recorder. White‐coat effect was determined by subtracting the awake period of the ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) from the clinical SBP. Subjects were grouped according to the size of their WCE. Those who showed a WCE of 5 mmHg and above were assigned to the WCE group; those who showed a WCE of between ?5 and 5 mmHg were assigned to the no white coat effect (NWCE) group; those who exhibited a WCE of ?5 mmHg and lower were assigned to the reverse white‐coat effect (RWCE) group. Subjects with a positive WCE had significantly higher body mass index (BMI) than those without a WCE and those with a RWCE. The WCE group had significantly higher clinic SBP and heart rate (HR) than the RWCE group. Arterial compliance was significantly lower in the WCE group as compared to the NWCE group and the RWCE group. The three groups had comparable ABP profiles. In terms of BP variability, the increase in SBP in response to mental stress did not differ among the three study groups nor did the 24‐hour and awake BP variability. For the sample as a whole, clinic HR and clinic‐ambulatory SBP difference were higher and arterial compliance were lower in women than in men. Furthermore, clinic SBP significantly correlated with the systolic WCE (r = 0.40, P = 0.009). When men and women were analyzed separately, the correlation between clinic SBP and the systolic WCE was significant in women (r = 0.63, P = 0.001) but not in men (P = 0.95). Multiple linear regression showed that sex (P = 0.013) and clinical SBP (P = 0.003) were the only two variables that significantly influenced the systolic WCE. These two variables together accounted for 29% of the variation in the systolic WCE. In conclusion sex and clinic BP are two major determinants of the WCE. The results of this study indicate that WCE is not related to higher stress reactivity or higher BP variability.     

Clinical features, anthropometric characteristics, and racial influences on the 'white-coat effect' in a single-centre cohort of 1553 consecutive subjects undergoing routine ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

BACKGROUND: Patients with high office blood pressures but relatively normal readings during daytime ambulatory monitoring have been the subject of much investigation and debate. This clinical finding in part depends on an alerting reaction to the circumstances of the clinical measurement, often described as the 'white-coat effect' (WCE). Little is known of the characteristics of patients that are associated with the white coat effect in a large population of routinely referred patients. OBJECTIVE: To relate the size of the WCE (defined as the difference between office and ambulatory daytime readings) to clinical features that may influence this phenomenon. METHODS: We categorized 1553 consecutive subjects (51.3% men, aged 17-88 years), who had been referred to a single centre for the assessment of suspected hypertension prospectively into three groups: those aged <40, 40-59, and >/=60 years. RESULTS: WCE on systolic blood pressure (SBP) increased significantly with advancing age and was correlated positively to body mass index (BMI), age and treatment. We found significant correlations to sex (higher in women) and race. WCE on diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased slightly with advancing age and was correlated positively to BMI and significantly to race and sex. We found no correlation to age or treatment. Caucasians had a greater WCE than did non-Caucasians (P<0. 001 for SBP and DBP) and hypertensives had greater WCE than did normotensives (P<0.0001 for SBP and DBP). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that age and BMI are the most important factors influencing WCE on SBP and DBP. CONCLUSIONS: Factors such as race, age and BMI may exert important influences on the size of WCE possibly via effects on sympathetic nervous system activity.     

White coat effect and white coat hypertension in community pharmacy practice

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether a white coat effect (WCE) can be observed and quantified in community pharmacy practice. METHODS: In five community pharmacies of Basel, Switzerland, clients asking for blood pressure (BP) measurement were recruited to participate in a free of charge study. Blood pressure was measured in four different settings: pharmacy (using mercury sphygmomanometers), outpatient clinic (measurement by a nurse using mercury sphygmomanometers), self-measurement at home (using automated wrist devices) and daytime ambulatory BP (ABP) monitoring (using SpaceLabs 90207 monitors). WCE was defined as the difference between pharmacy or outpatient and daytime ABP. RESULTS: A total of 50 subjects completed all measurements (42% male, mean age 53.7 years+/-14.0). Blood pressure values of the different settings: (means in mmHg+/-SD, systolic; diastolic): pharmacy BP 129+/-19; 82+/-10, outpatient clinic BP 127+/-15; 82+/-10, home BP 119+/-15; 73+/-9, daytime ABP 124+/-10; 79+/-8. Pharmacy BP was significantly higher (P=0.03 systolic; P=0.02 diastolic) compared with daytime ABP and differences among subjects with antihypertensive medication (n=22) were even more significant (P<0.01). Individual differences were found between pharmacy BP and daytime ABP: +4.6+/-14.8; +2.9+/-8.3. Outpatient BP was significantly higher compared with daytime ABP in diastolic (P=0.04) but not in systolic values. Individual differences between outpatient BP and daytime ABP were +2.5+/-13.1; +2.8+/-9.2. 'Clinically important WCE' (>or=20 mmHg systolic or >or=10 mmHg diastolic) was observed in 24% of all subjects in the pharmacy and in 20% in the outpatient clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that WCE and white coat hypertension exist in community pharmacy practice and are similar to the effects in an outpatient clinic.     

Effects of low-dose aspirin on clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in treated hypertensive patients

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may affect blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients receiving drug treatment, but data on the effects of low-dose aspirin are scanty. This study assessed the effects of chronic treatment with low doses of aspirin (100 mg/day) on clinic and ambulatory systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP in hypertensives on chronic, stable antihyper- tensive therapy. The study was conducted in the framework of the Primary Prevention Project (PPP), a randomized, controlled factorial trial on the preventive effect of aspirin or vitamin E in people with one or more cardiovascular risk factors. Fifteen Italian hypertension units studied 142 hypertensive patients (76 men, 66 women; mean age 59 ± 5.9 years) treated with different antihypertensive drugs: 71 patients were randomized to aspirin and 71 served as controls. All patients underwent a clinic BP evaluation with an automatic sphygmomanometer and a 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, at baseline and after 3 months of aspirin treatment. At the end of the study the changes in clinic SBP and DBP were not statistically different in treated and untreated subjects. Ambulatory SBP and DBP after 3 months of aspirin treatment were similar to baseline: ΔSBP −0.5 mmHg (95% confidence intervals [CI] from −1.9 to +2.9 mm Hg) and ΔDBP −1.1 mm Hg (95% CI from −2.5 to +0.3 mm Hg). The pattern was similar in the control group. No interaction was found between aspirin and the most used antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium antagonists). Despite the relatively small sample size our results seem to exclude any significant influence of low-dose aspirin on BP control in hypertensives under treatment.     

Birth weight, hypertension and "white coat" hypertension: size at birth in relation to office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure

We investigated the association of size at birth with hypertensive status defined by office blood pressure (BP) and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring in a historical cohort study of 736 men born 1920-1924 and examined at age 70 years. Office BP was measured after 10-min supine rest with a sphygmomanometer, ambulatory BP was recorded with Accutracker 2, and anthropometric and other measurements were taken at a clinic. Birth weight and gestational age were abstracted from the men's birth records. A total of 24% of the men were treated for hypertension at the time of the study. Among not treated subjects, there was a weak positive association of birth weight with daytime and 24-h diastolic ambulatory BP. In subjects treated for hypertension, both office and ambulatory BP were inversely related to birth weight, although these associations were not statistically significant. Birth weight did not show significant association with sustained hypertension (elevated office and daytime ambulatory BPs) but showed a strong and statistically significant inverse association with "white coat" hypertension (elevated office BP and normal daytime ambulatory BP) when adjusted for concurrent body mass index (odds ratios 1.91, 1.59, 1 and 1.21 from lowest to highest quartile of birth weight, P-value for trend 0.035). We conclude that BP measured by 24-h-ambulatory monitoring is not related to birth weight in a pattern previously reported for office BP and that factors related to growth in utero are particularly related to higher risk of "white coat" hypertension.     

Beneficial effects on blood pressure and lipid profile of programmed exercise training in subjects with white coat hypertension

BACKGROUND: Patients with white coat hypertension comprise a substantial portion of the hypertensive population. Previous reports have shown that moderate-intensity regular exercise training in patients with mild hypertension usually reduces blood pressure (BP), but there is a lack of data regarding individuals with white coat hypertension. This study was performed to evaluate whether programmed exercise was effective in reducing BP in patients with white coat hypertension and whether it also had beneficial effects on other biochemical parameters. METHODS: A total of 42 patients (23 men and 19 women) with white coat hypertension (mean 24-h ambulatory BP 119.2 +/- 6.6/78.3 +/- 5.8 mm Hg) were divided randomly into two groups: control (n = 20) (no exercise), and moderate-intensity exercise (n = 22). The training group exercised three times per week at the prescribed exercise intensity using a treadmill exercise program. Blood pressure, heart rate, and biochemical parameters were monitored every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Significant reductions in clinic and ambulatory BPs were seen in the exercise group after only 4 weeks regular exercise training and these persisted over the 12-week study. The mean maximal reductions in clinic BP were 11 mm Hg for systolic and 5 mm Hg for diastolic pressure. Significant reductions were found in plasma total cholesterol (-6.1%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (-14.1%), and triglyceride (-11.4%). Elevation of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (+11.2%) was also noted. CONCLUSIONS: These data, which are clinically significant, suggest that 12 weeks of exercise training can result in successful reduction of BP and favorable changes in the lipid profile that would be beneficial to patients with white coat hypertension.     

White coat hypertension and pregnancy outcome.

The presence and outcome effect of white coat hypertension in pregnancy was determined with 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Sixty women presenting with high clinic BP (>/=140/90 mm Hg) in the second trimester were included. Patients were divided into two groups based on daytime ambulatory BP findings: <135/85 mm Hg, white coat hypertension (n = 37); >/=135/85 mm Hg, 'true' hypertension (n = 23). Complicated pregnancy outcome was defined as the presence of pre-eclampsia and/or intrauterine growth restriction. Groups were compared for pregnancy outcome and for background and delivery factors. The predictive value of ambulatory BP measurements for pregnancy outcome was determined. Pregnancy outcome was better in the white coat hypertension group than in the true hypertension group: pre-eclampsia-3 (8.1%) vs 13 (56.5%) (P = 0.0046); intrauterine growth restriction-5 (13.5%) vs 10 (43.4%) (P = 0. 0139); and preterm delivery-11 (29.7%) vs 15 (65.2%) (P = 0.015). Night-time ambulatory BP measurements were the best predictor of complicated pregnancy, followed by daytime and 24-h measurements. We conclude that second trimester ambulatory BP monitoring can be used to differentiate patients who have white coat hypertension, which is associated with a better pregnancy outcome than true hypertension.     

Population-derived comparisons of ambulatory and office blood pressures. Implications for the determination of usual blood pressure and the concept of white coat hypertension.

BACKGROUND--Ambulatory blood pressures (BPs) have generally been reported to be lower than office blood pressures, but population-based data are lacking. METHODS--To better characterize ambulatory and office BP relationships, we explored the interrelationships of BPs measured in the office by mercury sphygmomanometry, 24-hour ambulatory BP measured with a portable device, and echocardiographic left ventricular mass in a random sample of 50 men aged 51 to 72 years drawn from a much larger pool. Office BP was based on the mean of 10 measurements performed over five visits. RESULTS--Among all participants, mean 24-hour ambulatory and mean office BPs were highly correlated: r (systolic/diastolic) = .90/.79; and both mean 24-hour and mean awake ambulatory BPs were significantly higher than mean office BPs. For the subsample not receiving antihypertensive therapy, mean ambulatory and office BPs were similar in terms of their associations with Penn left ventricular mass index (LVMI). No association between BP and left ventricular mass was observed among the subjects receiving antihypertensive medication. CONCLUSIONS--We conclude that a single session of 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring is unlikely to improve the determination of usual BP in older white men beyond that achievable with BP carefully measured over five separate office visits; and that white coat hypertension is rare in this population.     

Determinants of the white-coat effect in normotensives and never-treated mild hypertensives

The prognostic significance of the white-coat effect (WCE) is unclear. Knowledge of the predictors of the WCE may help illuminate the clinical significance of this phenomenon. The purpose of this study was to (i) compare characteristics of subjects demonstrating a WCE, those not demonstrating a WCE, and those demonstrating a reverse WCE and (ii) determine clinical features that may influence the size of the WCE. Forty-one subjects with normotension or mild hypertension who had never been treated with antihypertensive medications were recruited for the study. All subjects underwent a battery of anthropometrical measurements and clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements. To calculate arterial compliance, impedance cardiography was used to measure resting stroke volume in each subject. All subjects performed a laboratory mental stress protocol to determine the size of the BP reactivity. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) profiles were studied in each subject with the use of an oscillometric ABP recorder. White-coat effect was determined by subtracting the awake period of the ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) from the clinical SBP. Subjects were grouped according to the size of their WCE. Those who showed a WCE of 5 mmHg and above were assigned to the WCE group; those who showed a WCE of between -5 and 5 mmHg were assigned to the no white coat effect (NWCE) group; those who exhibited a WCE of -5 mmHg and lower were assigned to the reverse white-coat effect (RWCE) group. Subjects with a positive WCE had significantly higher body mass index (BMI) than those without a WCE and those with a RWCE. The WCE group had significantly higher clinic SBP and heart rate (HR) than the RWCE group. Arterial compliance was significantly lower in the WCE group as compared to the NWCE group and the RWCE group. The three groups had comparable ABP profiles. In terms of BP variability, the increase in SBP in response to mental stress did not differ among the three study groups nor did the 24-hour and awake BP variability. For the sample as a whole, clinic HR and clinic-ambulatory SBP difference were higher and arterial compliance were lower in women than in men. Furthermore, clinic SBP significantly correlated with the systolic WCE (r = 0.40, P = 0.009). When men and women were analyzed separately, the correlation between clinic SBP and the systolic WCE was significant in women (r = 0.63, P = 0.001) but not in men (P = 0.95). Multiple linear regression showed that sex (P = 0.013) and clinical SBP (P = 0.003) were the only two variables that significantly influenced the systolic WCE. These two variables together accounted for 29% of the variation in the systolic WCE. In conclusion sex and clinic BP are two major determinants of the WCE. The results of this study indicate that WCE is not related to higher stress reactivity or higher BP variability.     

Impact of blood pressure variability on cardiac and cerebrovascular complications in hypertension

BACKGROUND: The independent prognostic value of daytime and night-time blood pressure (BP) variability estimated by noninvasive 24-h BP monitoring is unclear. METHODS: We followed 2649 initially untreated subjects with essential hypertension for up to 16 years (mean, 6). Variability of BP was estimated by the standard deviation of daytime or night-time systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). A BP variability either less than or equal to the group median or greater than the group median (12.7/10.4 mm Hg for daytime SBP/DBP and 10.8 and 8.9 mm Hg for night-time SBP/DBP) identified subjects at low or high BP variability. RESULTS: During follow-up there were 167 new cardiac and 122 new cerebrovascular events. The rate of cardiac events (x100 person-years) was higher (all P < .05) in the subjects with high than in those with low BP variability (daytime SBP: 1.45 v 0.72, daytime DBP: 1.29 v 0.91; night-time SBP: 1.58 v 0.62; night-time DBP: 1.32 v 0.85). The rate of cerebrovascular events was also higher (all P < .05) in the subjects with high than in those with low BP variability. In a multivariate analysis, after adjustment for several confounders, a high night-time SBP variability was associated with a 51% (P = .024) excess risk of cardiac events. The relation of daytime BP variability to cardiac events and that of daytime and night-time BP variability to cerebrovascular events lost significance in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: An enhanced variability in SBP during the night-time is an independent predictor of cardiac events in initially untreated hypertensive subjects.