Blood pressure on arising, morning blood pressure surge and blood pressure variability in white coat hypertensives and in matched normotensives and sustained hypertensives.

INTRODUCTION: It is still controversial whether subjects with white-coat hypertension (WCHT) exhibit higher cardiovascular risk compared to normotensive subjects (NT). In subjects with WCHT it is not known whether the abnormal blood pressure (BP) reaction in the office also occurs at other times of day, particularly on arising and immediately after waking, i.e. the times at which the majority of cardiovascular events are reported to occur. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: To evaluate with 24h ambulatory BP measurement the values of morning BP surge, BP on arising and BP variability in subjects with WCHT in comparison with age-, gender- and weight-matched normotensives (BP) and untreated sustained hypertensives (BP). RESULTS: Groups of BP, WCHT and BP were matched for age, gender and body weight: BP: n=69, age 49 +/- 7 years, 54 % female, BMI 26 +/- 1, casual BP 126/79 +/- 5/4 mmHg, daytime BP 124/80 +/- 6/6 mmHg; WCHT: n=74, age 52 +/- 8 years, 57% female, BMI 26 +/- 2, casual BP 152/95 +/- 7/7 mmHg, daytime BP 126/80 +/- 5/6 mmHg; HT: n=79, age 53 +/- 7 years, 56% female, BMI 27 +/- 2, casual BP 154/97 +/- 9/8 mmHg, daytime BP 143/89 +/- 12/10 mmHg. Of the three groups, subjects with WCHT exhibited BP on arising (121/81 +/- 13/8 mmHg) similar to that of NTs (120/80 +/- 13/9 mmHg, NS), both significantly lower than that of HTs (137/92 +/- 17/10 mmHg, p < 0.01), suggesting the absence of an alerting BP reaction in WCHT at that time. By contrast, subjects with WCHT showed higher values of systolic morning BP surge vs. NTs (25 +/- 10 vs. 22 +/- 11 mmHg, p < 0.05), both lower than that observed in hypertensives (33 +/- 11 mmHg, p < 0.01 vs. NT and WCHT) and greater daytime variability (systolic BP standard variation), i.e. 12 2 vs. 10 +/- 2 mmHg, p < 0.05, both lower than that observed in hypertensives (14 +/- 3 mmHg, p < 0.01 vs. NT and WCHT). CONCLUSIONS: Although subjects with WCHT did not show any alerting blood pressure reaction on arising, morning BP surge and BP variability were greater in these subjects than in control normotensives, although lower than sustained hypertensives. Although this is still speculative, we cannot exclude the possibility that even a slight increase in morning BP surge might in the long term constitute an additional load on the circulation that could increase cardiovascular risk in subjects with WCHT compared to matched normotensives.     

Exaggerated morning blood pressure surge and cardiovascular events. A 5-year longitudinal study in normotensive and well-controlled hypertensive elderly

Cardiovascular events (CE) occur most frequently in the morning hours in hypertensive subjects. We studied the association between the morning blood pressure (BP) surge and CE in prognosis of 10 normotensive and 32 well-controlled hypertensive elderly, in whom ambulatory BP monitoring was performed and who were followed prospectively for 5 years. The morning surge (MS) of BP was calculated as mean systolic BP during 2 h after awakening − mean systolic BP during 1 h that included the lowest sleep BP. During an average of 60 months, five CE occurred. When the patients were divided into two groups according to MS, those in the top terzile (MS group; MS ≥ 34 mmHg, n = 14) had a higher prevalence of CE (5 versus 0, p = 0.001) during the follow-up period, than the others (non-MS group; MS < 34 mmHg, n = 28). The logistic regression analysis showed the MS sleep-trough surge as predictive variable of CE (odds ratio, OR = 0.794, p = 0.022). In conclusion, in older normotensives and well-controlled hypertensives, a higher BP MS is associated with vascular risk independently of clinical and ambulatory BP. Reduction of the MS could thus be a therapeutic target for preventing vascular events also in non-hypertensive patients.     

Negative association between plasma aldosterone concentration/plasma renin activity and morning blood pressure surge in never-treated hypertensive patients

Morning blood pressure (BP) surge (MS) has been known to be a predictor of cardiovascular events. Currently, few studies have evaluated the underlying mechanism underlying MS, which may include neurohormonal factors and the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS). This study aimed to examine plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) and plasma renin activity (PRA) and BP parameters with or without MS in never-treated subjects with essential hypertension. This cross-sectional study included a total of 261 patients (mean age: 48.8 years; 60.5% male) with never-treated essential hypertension who were registered in a working group at The Catholic University of Korea. The patients were divided into the MS group, which was defined as having the highest quartile of morning BP increase from sleep (>31?mmHg; n?=?66) and the non-MS group (≤31?mmHg; n?=?195). We collected 24-h ambulatory BP, pulse wave velocity, ankle brachial index, PAC and PRA from all patients. The measured PAC and PRA were lower in the MS group than in the non-MS group (PAC: 9.0?±?5.4?ng/dl versus 12.2?±?8.7?ng/dl, p?p?=?0.002). The MS group had greater variations in daytime, nighttime and 24-h systolic blood pressure (SBPs) than the non-MS group (24-h SBP: 15.6?±?4.4?mm Hg for the non-MS group and 18.9?±?4.9?mmHg for the MS group; p?相似文献   

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure in a population of elderly men

OBJECTIVES: The principal aim was to study ambulatory and office blood pressure in a population of elderly men. We also wanted to describe the prevalence of hypertension and investigate the blood pressure control in treated elderly hypertensives. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of a population of elderly men, conducted between 1991 and 1995. SUBJECTS: Seventy-year-old men (n = 1060), participants of a cohort study that began in 1970. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure. RESULTS: Average 24 h blood pressure in the population was 133 +/- 16/75 +/- 8 mmHg, and daytime blood pressure 140 +/- 16/80 +/- 9 mmHg. Corresponding values in untreated subjects (n = 685) were 131 +/- 16/74 +/- 7 and 139 +/- 16/79 +/- 8, respectively. An office recording of 140/90 mmHg corresponded to an ambulatory pressure of 130/78 (24 h) and 137/83 mmHg (daytime) in untreated subjects. In subjects identified as normotensives according to office blood pressure (n = 270), the 95th percentiles of average 24 h and daytime blood pressures were 142/80 and 153/85 mmHg, respectively. The prevalence of hypertension, defined as office blood pressure greater than or = 140/90 mmHg, was 66%. Despite treatment, treated hypertensives (n = 285) showed higher office (157/89 vs. 127/76 mmHg) and 24 h ambulatory (138/78 vs. 122/71 mmHg) pressures than normotensives (P < 0.05). Fourteen per cent of the treated hypertensives had an office blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a basis for 24 h ambulatory blood pressure reference values in elderly men. The study confirms previous findings of a high prevalence of hypertension at older age. It also indicates that blood pressure is inadequately controlled in elderly treated hypertensives.     

Lack of correlation between QTc dispersion and morning blood pressure surge in recently diagnosed essential hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events are known to occur more frequently in patients with a high morning surge in blood pressure (BP), but the correlation between a morning BP surge and corrected QT dispersion (QTc) has not been confirmed to date. METHODS AND RESULTS: The correlation between the morning BP surge and QTc was studied in 82 patients recently diagnosed with high BP (47 males, 35 females). Twenty-four-hours BP monitoring was conducted to classify patients into dipper (n=45) or nondipper (n=37) groups according to the degree of nocturnal BP reduction. QTc was found to be significantly longer in the nondippers compared with the dippers (36.1+/-17.2 vs 47.6+/-20.7, p<0.001). In addition, there was a significant increase in the end-diastolic interventricular septum thickness (IVSd), left ventricular posterior wall thickness in diastole (PWT) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in the nondippers vs the dippers (respectively, 0.93+/-0.09 vs 1.03+/-0.05, p<0.001, 0.94+/-0.09 vs 1.01+/-0.04, p<0.01, 109.7+/-12.8 vs 129.1+/-20.9, p<0.001). QTc had a significant positive correlation with nighttime BP, IVSd, PWT, and LVMI, but negatively correlated with the nocturnal BP reduction rate. These results were maintained even after adjusting for age and gender. However, a significant correlation between the morning BP surge and QTc was not confirmed. CONCLUSION: In the present nondipper hypertensive patients, QTc, nighttime BP, LVMI, and wall thickness were significantly greater than in the dipper patients. However, there was no significant correlation between the morning BP surge and QTc.     

Predictors of controlled ambulatory blood pressure in treated hypertensive patients with uncontrolled office blood pressure.

Although some treated hypertensive patients have controlled 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) despite their uncontrolled office blood pressure (BP), the factors relating to the control of 24-h ABP remain unknown. We conducted a study to assess 24-h ABP and its association with other cardiovascular risk factors, including echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), in elderly hypertensive patients (n =41) with uncontrolled office BP (>140/90 mmHg) during long-term medication. Although a majority of the patients had isolated elevation of office systolic BP (SBP), there was no significant relationship between office SBP and 24-h SBP, and about half of the patients had controlled 24-h ABP (125+/-8/69+/-6 mmHg). Patients with controlled 24-h ABP (125+/-8/69+/-6 mmHg) had similar office BP (150+/-6/77+/-5 vs. 150+/-7/79+/-7 mmHg), but lower left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (123+/-34 vs. 156+/-34 g/m(2)) and body mass index (BMI) (24.4+/-2.1 vs. 26.4+/-3.6 kg/m(2)) compared with those with uncontrolled 24-h ABP (149+/-13/78+/-7 mmHg). Multivariate analysis showed that LVMI and BMI were independently associated with controlled 24-h ABP, and the control status of 24-h ABP was highly dependent on the presence of LVH and obesity. Therefore, absence of LVH and obesity may be useful for predicting the level of control of 24-h ABP in treated patients whose office BP is uncontrolled without ABP measurements.     

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring versus self-measurement of blood pressure at home: correlation with target organ damage

OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring and home blood pressure measurements predicted the presence of target organ damage and the risk of cardiovascular events better than did office blood pressure. METHODS: To compare these two methods in their correlation with organ damage, we consecutively included 325 treated (70%) or untreated hypertensives (125 women, mean age = 64.5 +/- 11.3) with office (three measurements at two consultations), home (three measurements morning and evening over 3 days) and 24-h ambulatory monitoring. Target organs were evaluated by ECG, echocardiography, carotid echography and detection of microalbuminuria. Data from 302 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: Mean BP levels were 142/82 mmHg for office, 135.5/77 mmHg for home and 128/76 mmHg for 24-h monitoring (day = 130/78 mmHg; night = 118.5/67 mmHg). With a 135 mmHg cut-off, home and daytime blood pressure diverged in 20% of patients. Ambulatory and Home blood pressure were correlated with organ damage more closely than was office BP with a trend to better correlations with home BP. Using regression analysis, a 140 mmHg home systolic blood pressure corresponded to a 135 mmHg daytime systolic blood pressure; a 133 mmHg daytime ambulatory blood pressure and a 140 mmHg home blood pressure corresponded to the same organ damage cut-offs (Left ventricular mass index = 50 g/m, Cornell.QRS = 2440 mm/ms, carotid intima media thickness = 0.9 mm). Home-ambulatory differences were significantly associated with age and antihypertensive treatment. CONCLUSION: We showed that home blood pressure was at least as well correlated with target organ damage, as was the ambulatory blood pressure. Home-ambulatory correlation and their correlation with organ damage argue in favor of different cut-offs, that are approximately 5 mmHg higher for systolic home blood pressure.     

Left ventricular hypertrophy in treated hypertensive patients with good blood pressure control outside the clinic,but poor clinic blood pressure control

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in treated patients with good blood pressure (BP) control during multiple home BP (HBP) measurements and during 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), but with unsatisfactory BP control in the clinic. These patients were compared with treated hypertensives whose BP was well controlled under the three circumstances. METHODS: Seventy-two treated consecutive patients (group I, age 56 +/- 10 years) with clinic BP values > or = 140/90 mmHg, and a difference between clinic and self-measured HBP > 10 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and/or > 20 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP), underwent the following procedures: (1) clinic BP measurement; (2) routine diagnostic work-up; (3) HBP monitoring; (4) 24-h ABPM; (5) echocardiography. Thirty-five hypertensive patients with satisfactory BP control according to clinic (< 140/90 mmHg), HBP (< or = 131/82 mmHg) and ABP criteria (< or = 125/79 mmHg) were included as the control group (group II, age 55 +/- 9 years). RESULTS: In group I, 33 subjects out of the 72 (46%) with clinic BP > 140/90 mmHg had BP values controlled outside the clinic (23 according to HBP criteria and 22 according to ABP criteria). The prevalence of LVH (LV mass index > 134 g/m2 in men and > 110 g/m2 in women) was significantly higher in these patients (15.1 versus 2.8%, P < 0.01) than in group II (BP also controlled in the clinic), despite the fact that HBP and ABP were reduced to similar levels in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Our data provide evidence that treated hypertensive patients with good BP control at home or during ambulatory monitoring, but incomplete BP control in the clinic, have more pronounced cardiac alterations than patients with both clinic and out of the clinic BP control. This finding offers a new piece of information about the diagnostic value of BP measurement in the clinic to assess BP control during antihypertensive treatment.     

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.     

Twenty-four-hour blood pressure monitoring and effects of indapamide

Twenty-four-hour blood pressure (BP) monitoring with a noninvasive device (Kontron) has been used to assess the effect of a single dose of indapamide in a group of patients with essential hypertension. Originally 23 patients were selected. Three patients withdrew from the study because of refusal to go through the second 24-hour recording. Eight of the remaining patients had to be excluded for technical reasons, which left 12 patients available for analysis. All patients received a single dose of indapamide, 2.5 mg/day. Before treatment began, a 24-hour BP control was performed, and a second one a month later (37 +/- 8 days). The age of the patients was 46 +/- 10 years. Diurnal BP (8 am to 10 pm) and heart rate were, respectively, 148 +/- 15/101 +/- 6 mmHg and 79 +/- 9 beats/min; night BP (10 pm to 8 am) was 131 +/- 15/88 +/- 7 mmHg and heart rate 71 +/- 10 beats/min. After therapy, diurnal BP was 131 +/- 15/92 +/- 7 mmHg (-15 +/- 7/-8 +/- 4: p less than 0.0001/p less than 0.0001); heart rate 82 +/- 8 beats/min (difference not significant); night BP was 115 +/- 13/80 +/- 8 mmHg (-16 +/- 11/-8 +/- 7: p less than 0.0001/p less than 0.0001) and heart rate 70 +/- 9 beats/min (difference not significant). Twenty-four-hour systolic work values were 106 +/- 15 at the beginning of the trial and 96 +/- 14 (-9.7 +/- 14; p less than 0.05) after 1 month of indapamide treatment. Variability did not change with treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Comparison of the effects of amlodipine and losartan on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients

Effects of amlodipine (AML), a long-acting calcium antagonist, and losartan (LOS), an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, on 24-hr blood pressure profile were compared in 15 patients with essential hypertension. After 4 weeks of placebo period, the patients were treated with AML or LOS in a random crossover design for 12-16 weeks each. Either drug was given once daily at 0800 and the doses were titrated so that the office blood pressure was reduced lower than 140/90mmHg. At the end of each period, 24-hr blood pressure was monitored. Average office blood pressure was lowered from 158 +/- 2/ 98 +/- 2 mmHg to 134 +/- 1/87 +/- 1 mmHg by AML and 134 +/- 2/88 +/- 1 mmHg by LOS. Average 24-hr blood pressure was also reduced from 144 +/- 3/ 92 +/- 2 mmHg to 131 +/- 2/84 +/- 2 mmHg by AML and 135 +/- 3/85 +/- 2 mmHg by LOS. The averaged 24-hr systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in AML than in LOS (p < 0.05). Then, the 24-hr blood pressure was analyzed for four segments; morning (0530-0900 h), daytime (0930-1800 h), evening (1830-2300 h) and night (2330-0500 h). Although the daytime blood pressure was comparable between AML and LOS, systolic blood pressure in the evening and morning hours were lower in AML than in LOS (133 +/- 2 vs. 138 +/- 3mmHg,p<0.01; 129 +/- 3 vs. 134 +/- 4,p<0.05). Troughtopeakratio of antihypertensive effect on systolic blood pressure was significantly greater in AML than in LOS (62 +/- 5% vs. 55 +/- 4%, p < 0.05). Either drug did not cause reflective increase in pulse rate over 24 hours. These results suggest that both AML and LOS are equally effective in lowering daytime blood pressure without eliciting reflex tachycardia, however, the antihypertensive effect of AML lasts longer than that of LOS. Such information seems important to achieve 24-hr blood pressure control using these drugs.     

Office blood pressure underestimates ambulatory blood pressure in peripheral arterial disease in comparison to healthy controls

Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) constitute a subgroup of high-risk hypertensives, but controlled studies on 24-h blood pressure (BP) and diurnal variation of BP are lacking. This study was performed in order to test the hypothesis that office BP (OBP) may underestimate 24-h BP in PAD patients in comparison to a matched control group. In all, 98 male patients (mean age 68 years) with a history of intermittent claudication and an ankle/brachial index less than 0.9, and 94 controls matched for age but without PAD or ischaemic heart disease performed 24-h recordings of ambulatory BP. A total of 59 patients had a history of hypertension and 69 were on treatment with BP-lowering drugs as compared to 17 and 23 of the control subjects, respectively. Office as well as 24-h systolic BP (SBP) were higher in patients as compared to controls (151 +/- 22 vs 140 +/- 20 mmHg, P < 0.001 and 142 +/- 14 vs 133 +/- 15 mmHg, P < 0.001, respectively), but did not differ with regard to diastolic BP. In an analysis of covariance with the continuous factors age, office SBP and the categorical factor antihypertensive treatment, 24-h SBP was higher in PAD patients compared to controls (P < 0.05). The difference between office and night SBP was lower in PAD patients with antihypertensive treatment compared to controls (P = 0.01). In conclusion, Male patients with PAD had higher systolic but not diastolic BP than age-matched control subjects. In PAD patients, 24-h SBP was higher than expected from OBP compared to controls. Night SBP was higher only in patients with antihypertensive treatment. In PAD patients, especially when on antihypertensive treatment, the severity of hypertension may be underestimated when based on OBP only.     

Pattern of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in type 2 diabetic patients with cardiovascular dysautonomy

The pathophysiological mechanisms linking cardiovascular dysautonomy to mortality are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the pattern of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) in diabetic patients with cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN). We evaluated 391 type 2 diabetic patients in a cross-sectional study. Five clinical tests of CAN were performed: heart-rate variation during deep breathing, the Valsalva maneuver, and standing, and BP variation during handgrip and standing. Patients were considered to have initial CAN if one heart-rate test was abnormal or two were borderline, and to have definite or severe CAN if at least two tests were abnormal. Differences between patients with and without CAN were assessed by bivariate tests and ANCOVA. Of the 391 patients, 230 (59%) presented clinical CAN, of whom 53 had definite or severe involvement. Patients with CAN were older, had diabetes of longer duration, and had an equal prevalence of hypertension but used more antihypertensive drugs than those without CAN. On ABPM, patients with definite or severe CAN had higher systolic BP (SBP) and pulse pressures (PP) than those without CAN, particularly in the nighttime (SBP: 128 +/- 18 vs. 117 +/- 16 mmHg, p = 0.007; PP: 58 +/- 13 vs. 50 +/- 11 mmHg, p = 0.003) and early morning (SBP: 140 +/- 18 vs. 131 +/- 17 mmHg, p = 0.05) after adjustment for potential confounders, as well as a higher prevalence of the systolic nondipping pattern (75.5% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.021). In conclusion, type 2 diabetic patients with more severe CAN have higher SBP and PP, especially during the nighttime and early morning, as well as a higher prevalence of nondipping status. This unfavorable 24-h ABPM pattern may contribute to the increased cardiovascular risk of diabetic patients with dysautonomy.     

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.     

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

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

Morning versus evening administration of a calcium channel blocker in combination therapy for essential hypertension by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring analysis

Patients with moderate to severe hypertension may need more than two antihypertensive drugs in combination to achieve ideal blood pressure (BP) control. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of administering the antihypertensive agents either all together in the morning or separately with two agents in the morning and one calcium channel blocker (CCB) in the evening. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed among 15 patients (mean, 59 years) with moderate to severe essential hypertension. All patients received at least 3 antihypertensive drugs for ideal BP control. Two treatment regimens were given to each patient: Regimen 1: All antihypertensive agents were given once a day in the morning; Regimen 2: All antihypertensive agents were given in the morning, except the CCB which was given at 4:00 pm. After receiving regimen 1 for 4 weeks, each patient underwent 24-hour ABPM to analyze the BP control. After the first ABPM, each patient was switched to regimen 2. After 4 weeks of treatment with regimen 2, each patient underwent the second ABPM measurement. The pretreatment mean systolic and diastolic BP were 179.6 +/- 21.7 and 107.4 +/- 19.9 mmHg, respectively. Between the two regimens, there was no significant difference in the mean 24-hour BP (126.1 +/- 5.8/73.3 +/- 3.8 versus 130.2 +/- 6.2/75.1 +/- 4.7 mmHg), daytime BP (128.2 +/- 6.5/75.3 +/- 3.8 versus 132.4 +/- 5.8/77.2 +/- 4.4 mmHg), nighttime BP (125.2 +/- 4.9/72.4 +/- 3.3 versus 130.9 +/- 6.2/73.8 +/- 4.1 mmHg), and 24-hour heart rate (65.1 +/- 3.8 versus 64.2 +/- 3.4 bpm). The circadian BP and heart rate profiles were almost identical between regimen 1 and regimen 2. We conclude that in patients with moderate to severe hypertension treated with at least 3 antihypertensive agents, administering a CCB simultaneously with other antihypertensive agents in the morning or separately in the evening did not affect the 24-hour BP control.     

Ambulatory blood pressure characteristics in normotensive and treated hypertensive older people

The objective of this study was to determine the normal values and characteristics of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and to describe the ABP level of treated hypertensive subjects in an older Finnish population. ABP was measured in 502 randomly selected subjects aged 64 years or over living in a Finnish municipality (mean age 70 years, range 64-87 years). A total of 211 subjects did not have blood pressure (BP) affecting medication. ABP measurements were taken every 30 min for 24 h, and the day- and night-time periods were diary-based. The results were that in untreated subjects, the average office BP was 134/82 +/- 16/9 (s.d.) mm Hg for men and 140/81 +/- 18/8 mm Hg for women. The 24-h average BP was 120/75 +/- 14/8 mm Hg (95th percentile upper limit 145/93 mm Hg) for men and 125/75 +/- 15/7 (95th = 154/89 mm Hg) for women. The daytime averages were 127/78 +/- 12/7 mm Hg (95th = 154/99 mm Hg) and 131/78 +/- 15/7 mm Hg (95th = 158/91 mm Hg) for men and women, respectively. The ABP daytime value of 130/83 mm Hg corresponded best to the office BP value of 140/90 mm Hg. All BP values were significantly higher in the treated hypertensive group compared to the normotensive group. Night-time BP was markedly lower than daytime BP, and no difference in circadian variability was found between the normotensive and hypertensive subjects. Both office and ambulatory BPs were significantly higher in women than in men. This study provides sex-specific normal values for ABP in a 64 to 87-year-old age group. The normal values of ABP were markedly lower than the office BP values. Hypertensives, even when treated, tended to have elevated values.     

Chronobiological analysis by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring of the hyperbaric and hypobaric indexes for evaluation of the antihypertensive effect of long-acting nifedipine.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that chronobiology can provide new insights into the evaluation and treatment of cardiovascular disease. In the present study the hyperbaric index (hyperBI) and hypobaric index (hypoBI) were compared with the mean blood pressure (BP) over 24 h to evaluate the antihypertensive effect of long-acting nifedipine on essential hypertension. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fourteen patients were treated with nifedipine CR (20-40 mg/day) for 6 months. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed before and after treatment. The hyperBI (mmHg . h/day) was calculated as the integrated BP area above the conventional upper limit (140/90 mmHg for the daytime and 120/80 mmHg at night), and the hypoBI was calculated as the integrated BP area below the conventional lower limit (110/60 mmHg for the daytime and 100/50 mmHg at night). At baseline, both the systolic and diastolic 24-h hyperBI values closely correlated with the 24-h mean BP (r=0.994 and 0.935, p<0.0001). Treatment with nifedipine significantly lowered both the 24-h mean systolic and diastolic BP (143+/-14/89 +/-12 to 124+/-16/80+/-8 mmHg, p<0.001/p=0.001), as well as the casual BP (167+/-11/101 +/-8 to 140+/-13/86+/-10 mmHg, p<0.001/p<0.01). Reduction of both the systolic and diastolic hyperBI values was statistically significant over the 24-h period (274+/-266 to 90+/-155, p=0.009; 145+/-187 to 41+/-63, p=0.024), as well as during the daytime (200+/-181 to 66+/-116, p=0.014; 105+/-120 to 24+/-38, p=0.017) and at night (systolic, 74+/-106 to 24+/-52, p=0.021). The 24-h mean BP was normalized, but a small excess BP load persisted despite treatment. There was no significant increase of systolic hypoBI during the 24-h period (1+/-2 to 25+/-30, p=0.065), the daytime (0+/-0 to 14+/-38, p=0.20), or at night (1+/-3 to 11+/-19, p=0,052). Similar findings were obtained for diastolic hypoBI. CONCLUSIONS: Nifedipine CR improved the 24-h hyperBI and mean BP without causing excessive hypotension. These 2 parameters have a close relationship when assessment is done by 24-h BP monitoring. The hyperBI and hypoBI may assist in providing adequate antihypertensive therapy for individual patients by detecting an excessive BP load or hypotension, respectively.     

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.     

Ambulatory blood pressure in hypertension with dysautonomia

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the interest of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recording (ABPR) in the management of arterial hypertension (AH) with dysautonomia. The study concerned 8 hypertensive patients (pts), 5 men, 3 females 52 +/- 10 years old, with orthostatic hypotension (OH): BP was 162 +/- 19/87 +/- 16 mmHg and 129 +/- 15/76 +/- 8 mmHg in lying and standing position respectively. In two cases AH was associated with a central degenerative disorder whereas the six other pts had a diabetic dysautonomia: bad metabolic control (HBA1c 14.4 +/- 2.7%), and incipient or over nephropathy (4 pts). ABPR was performed in all pts during 24 hours (space-labs system). In these hypertensive pts with OH, the mean 24 hour-BP was surprisingly normal at 128 +/- 11/76 +/- 6 mmHg. ABPR demonstrated the loss of nocturnal decline in BP: diurnal and nocturnal BP were respectively 125 +/- 13/74 +/- 6 mmHg and 133 +/- 16/78 +/- 10 mmHg (NS). 6 of 8 pts had an increase in BP at night resulting for the population (n = 8) in a nocturnal increase (%) of + 5.6%, this pattern widely differs from controls--13%. The decrease in heart rate during sleep was blunted but significant from 89 +/- 9 b/min to 81 +/- 9 b/min (p 0.01). Diurnal and nocturnal BP variability (V), assessed by variation coefficient were not significantly different: SBP-V was 10.3 +/- 6.4% day and 12.3 +/- 4.2% night, DBP-V 7.5 +/- 6.3% day and 12.5 +/- 3.1% night.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)