White-coat effect and masked hypertension in patients with high-normal office blood pressure: results of the Hungarian ABPM Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure (BP) lowering therapy in hypertension can markedly reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases. In case of high-normal office blood pressure (oBP), the initiation of antihypertensive medication is recommended by guidelines in patients with very high cardiovascular risk. The aims of this study were to evaluate the presence of white-coat high-normal BP (WhHNBP) and masked hypertension in high-normal oBP and to explore the prevalence of untreated very high cardiovascular risk patients. METHODS: Data of the Hungarian Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) Registry between September 2020 and November 2023 were used in our analysis. RESULTS: From 38 720 uploaded ABPM curves with clinical data, 4300 individuals were categorized as having high-normal oBP. Among those, 3285 (76.4%) were on antihypertensive treatment. Based on the ABPM recordings, high-normal BP was confirmed in 20.5% ( n  = 881), while WhHNBP was present in 27.6% ( n  = 1188) and masked hypertension in 51.9% ( n  = 2231). Similar results were found in treated and untreated subjects or patients as well. Independent predictors of WhHNBP were age [odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02), P  < 0.001], female sex [OR: 1.59 (1.32-1.92), P  < 0.001] and snoring [OR: 0.70 (0.57-0.86), P  < 0.001]. Independent predictors of masked hypertension were male sex [OR: 1.31 (1.12-1.54), P  < 0.001] and obesity [OR: 1.71 (1.39-2.09), P  < 0.001]. Five hundred and two individuals had very high cardiovascular risk with high-normal oBP and only 25 of them were untreated. CONCLUSION: In high-normal oBP, WhHNBP or masked hypertension is present in three out of four individuals. Most of the patients with high-normal oBP and very high cardiovascular risk are already treated with antihypertensive drugs.

Cuff-based blood pressure measurement: challenges and solutions.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate measurement of arterial blood pressure (BP) is crucial for the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of hypertension. This narrative review highlights the challenges associated with conventional (cuff-based) BP measurement and potential solutions. This work covers each method of cuff-based BP measurement, as well as cuffless alternatives, but is primarily focused on ambulatory BP monitoring. RESULTS: Manual BP measurement requires stringent training and standardized protocols which are often difficult to ensure in stressful and time-restricted clinical office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM) scenarios. Home Blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) can identify white-coat and masked hypertension but strongly depends on patient adherence to measurement techniques and procedure. The widespread use of nonvalidated automated HBPM devices raises further concerns about measurement accuracy. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) may be used in addition to OBPM. It is recommended to diagnose white-coat and masked hypertension as well as nocturnal BP and dipping, which are the BP values most predictive for major adverse cardiac events. Nonetheless, ABPM is limited by its non-continuous nature and susceptibility to measurement artefacts. This leads to poor overall reproducibility of ABPM results, especially regarding clinical parameters such as BP variability or dipping patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Cuff-based BP measurement, despite some limitations, is vital for cardiovascular health assessment in clinical practice. Given the wide range of methodological limitations, the paradigm's potential for improvement is not yet fully realized. There are impactful and easily incorporated opportunities for innovation regarding the enhancement of measurement accuracy and reliability as well as the clinical interpretation of the retrieved data. There is a clear need for continued research and technological advancement to improve BP measurement as the premier tool for cardiovascular disease detection and management.

Accurate blood pressure measurement is crucial for diagnosing, monitoring, and treating hypertension and preventing cardiovascular diseases.Manual blood pressure monitoring is common but may not always be reliable due to the stress and time constraints in clinical settings. It also fails to detect white-coat and masked hypertension.Home blood pressure monitoring helps to identify white-coat and masked hypertension but depends on how well patients follow the measurement instructions. Many devices are not validated, raising concerns about their accuracy.Ambulatory blood pressure measurement may be used in addition to office blood pressure measurement because of its better reproducibility and higher predictive value. It is recommended to diagnose white-coat and masked hypertension as well as nocturnal BP and dipping. However, it and can be prone to errors, affecting the reliability of results like BP variability or night-time dipping patterns.Patient's posture, physical activity, and conditions like atrial fibrillation can influence BP readings.Automated BP devices often have limitations in detecting measurement artefacts, underscoring the need for technological improvements.Despite its limitations, cuff-based blood pressure measurement is essential in everyday clinical practice but has unlocked potential for improvement.

Masked uncontrolled hypertension among elderly black sub-saharan africans compared to younger adults: a cross-sectional in-hospital study.

BACKGROUND: Although aging and being of African descent are well-known risk factors for masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH), data on MUCH among elderly black sub-Saharan Africans (BSSA) are limited. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the determinants of MUCH in younger individuals differ from those in the elderly. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the prevalence and risk factors associated with MUCH in both elderly and younger BSSA individuals. METHODS: In this study, 168 patients with treated hypertension were assessed for medical history, clinical examination, fundoscopy, echocardiography, and laboratory data. All patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring for 24 h. MUCH was diagnosed if the average 24-h mean BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg, the daytime mean BP ≥ 135/85 mmHg, and/or the nighttime mean BP ≥ 120/70 mmHg, despite controlled clinic BP (≤ 140/90 mmHg). Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess independent factors associated with MUCH, including elderly and younger adults separately. P-values < 0.05 were used to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Of the 168 patients aged 53.6 ± 11.6 years, 92 (54.8%) were men, with a sex ratio of 1.2, and, 66 (39%) were aged ≥ 60 years. The proportion of patients with MUCH (27.4% for all patients) was significantly higher (p = 0.002) among elderly patients than among younger patients (45.5% vs. 15.7%). Diabetes mellitus (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-4.46; p = 0.043), anemia (aOR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.07-5.81; p = 0.043), hypertensive retinopathy (aOR, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.57-5.4; p = 0.043), and left ventricular hypertrophy (aOR, 4.48; 95% CI, 2.26-8.35; p = 0.043) were independently associated with MUCH in the elderly. In younger individuals, male gender (aOR, 2.16; 95% CI, (1.33-4.80); p = 0.029), obesity (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, (1.26-5.32); p = 0.001), and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (aOR, 3.08; 95% CI, (2.14-6.24); p = 0.019) were independently associated with MUCH were independently associated with MUCH. CONCLUSION: MUCH is more prevalent among elderly than among younger BSSA individuals. Determinants of MUCH vary by age. MUCH prevention and management strategies should be age-specific.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Isolated Nighttime Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension in Treated Patients.

Background and Objectives: We evaluated the prevalence and characteristics of isolated nighttime masked uncontrolled hypertension (IN-MUCH) in treated patients. Materials and Methods: Participants aged 20 years or older who were on antihypertensive medication underwent three-day office blood pressure (BP) and 24 h ambulatory BP measurements. Hypertension phenotypes were classified as controlled hypertension (CH), isolated daytime masked uncontrolled hypertension (ID-MUCH), IN-MUCH, and daytime and nighttime masked uncontrolled hypertension (DN-MUCH). Results: Among 701 participants, 544 had valid BP data and controlled office BP (<140/90 mmHg). The prevalence of IN-MUCH was 34.9%, with a higher prevalence of men and drinkers than in those with CH. Patients with IN-MUCH had higher office systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) than those with CH. The prevalence of IN-MUCH was 37.6%, 38.5%, and 27.9% in patients with optimal, normal, and high-normal office BP levels, respectively. Among IN-MUCH patients, 51.6% exhibited isolated uncontrolled DBP and 41.1% uncontrolled SBP and DBP. Younger age (p = 0.043), male sex (p = 0.033), and alcohol consumption (p = 0.011) were more prevalent in patients with isolated uncontrolled DBP than in those with uncontrolled SBP and DBP. Age and alcohol consumption were positively associated, whereas high-normal office BP exhibited a negative association with IN-MUCH. Conclusions: The IN-MUCH was significantly more prevalent in patients with normal or optimal office BP, posing treatment challenges. Further investigation is needed to determine whether differentiation between isolated uncontrolled DBP and combined uncontrolled SBP and DBP is necessary for prognostic assessment of IN-MUCH.

Cutoffs for white-coat and masked blood pressure effects: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study.

The values used to define white-coat and masked blood pressure (BP) effects are usually arbitrary. This study aimed at investigating the accuracy of various cutoffs based on the differences (ΔBP) between office BP (OBP) and 24h-ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to identify white-coat (WCH) and masked (MH) hypertension, which are phenotypes coupled with adverse prognosis. This cross-sectional study included 11,350 [Derivation cohort; 45% men, mean age = 55.1 ± 14.1 years, OBP = 132.1 ± 17.6/83.9 ± 12.5 mmHg, 24 h-ABPM = 121.6 ± 11.4/76.1 ± 9.6 mmHg, 25% using antihypertensive medications (AH)] and 7220 (Validation cohort; 46% men, mean age = 58.6 ± 15.1 years, OBP = 136.8 ± 18.7/87.6 ± 13.0 mmHg, 24 h-ABPM = 125.5 ± 12.6/77.7 ± 10.3 mmHg; 32% using AH) unique individuals who underwent 24 h-ABPM. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the curve (AUC) of diverse ΔBP cutoffs to detect WCH (ΔsystolicBP/ΔdiastolicBP = 28/17, 20/15, 20/10, 16/11, 15/9, 14/9 mmHg and ΔsystolicBP = 13 and 10 mmHg) and MH (ΔsystolicBP/ΔdiastolicBP = -14/-9, -5/-2, -3/-1, -1/-1, 0/0, 2/2 mmHg and ΔsystolicBP = -5 and -3mmHg). The 20/15 mmHg cutoff showed the best AUC (0.804, 95%CI = 0.794-0.814) to detect WCH, while the 2/2 mmHg cutoff showed the highest AUC (0.741, 95%CI = 0.728-0.754) to detect MH in the Derivation cohort. Both cutoffs also had the best accuracy to detect WCH (0.767, 95%CI = 0.754-0.780) and MH (0.767, 95%CI = 0.750-0.784) in the Validation cohort. In secondary analyses, these cutoffs had the best accuracy to detect individuals with higher and lower office-than-ABPM grades in both cohorts. In conclusion, the 20/15 and 2/2 mmHg ΔBP cutoffs had the best accuracy to detect hypertensive patients with WCH and MH, respectively, and can serve as indicators of marked white-coat and masked BP effects derived from 24 h-ABPM.

Masked phenomenon: renal and cardiovascular complications; review and updates.

BACKGROUND: In the in-clinic blood pressure (BP) recording setting, a sizable number of individuals with normal BP and approximately 30% of patients with chronic renal disease (CKD) exhibit elevated outpatient BP records. These individuals are known as masked hypertension (MHTN), and when they are on antihypertensive medications, but their BP is not controlled, they are called masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUHTN). The masked phenomenon (MP) (MHTN and MUHTN) increases susceptibility to end-organ damage (a two-fold greater risk for cardiovascular events and kidney dysfunction). The potential extension of the observed benefits of MP therapy, including a reduction in end-organ damage, remains questionable. AIM AND METHODS: This review aims to study the diagnostic methodology, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and significance of MP management in end-organs, especially the kidneys, cardiovascular system, and outcomes. To achieve the purposes of this non-systematic comprehensive review, PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar were searched using keywords, texts, and phrases such as masked phenomenon, CKD and HTN, HTN types, HTN definition, CKD progression, masked HTN, MHTN, masked uncontrolled HTN, CKD onset, and cardiovascular system and MHTN. We restricted the search process to the last ten years to search for the latest updates. CONCLUSION: MHTN is a variant of HTN that can be missed if medical professionals are unaware of it. Early detection by ambulatory or home BP recording in susceptible individuals reduces end-organ damage and progresses to sustained HTN. Adherence to the available recommendations when dealing with masked phenomena is justifiable; however, further studies and recommendation updates are required.

Blood pressure tells us how much force the heart exerts on the blood vessels as it pumps blood. Normal blood pressure should be 120/80 mmHg, which generally decreases when a person is sleeping or sitting. High blood pressure or hypertension occurs when the blood pressure is too high. Hidden or masked hypertension (MH) is a type of high blood pressure. Masked hypertension was described as having high blood pressure readings even though the doctor's office or in-clinic showed normal blood pressure readings.This review aimed to teach people about various kinds of high blood pressure, focusing on hidden (masked) hypertension and how to recognise it, as well as its consequences, treatment, and new information.

Office measurement vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: associations with mortality in patients with or without diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines suggest similar blood pressure (BP) targets in patients with and without diabetes and recommend ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to diagnose and classify hypertension. It was explored whether different levels of ambulatory and office BP and different hypertension phenotypes associate with differences of risk in diabetes and no diabetes. METHODS: This analysis assessed outcome data from the Spanish ABPM Registry in 59 124 patients with complete available data. The associations between office, mean, daytime, and nighttime ambulatory BP with the risk in patients with or without diabetes were explored. The effects of diabetes on mortality in different hypertension phenotypes, i.e. sustained hypertension, white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, compared with normotension were studied. Analyses were done with Cox regression analyses and adjusted for demographic and clinical confounders. RESULTS: A total of 59 124 patients were recruited from 223 primary care centres in Spain. The majority had an office systolic BP >140 mmHg (36 700 patients), and 23 128 (40.6%) patients were untreated. Diabetes was diagnosed in 11 391 patients (19.2%). Concomitant cardiovascular (CV) disease was present in 2521 patients (23.1%) with diabetes and 4616 (10.0%) without diabetes. Twenty-four-hour mean, daytime, and nighttime ambulatory BP were associated with increased risk in diabetes and no diabetes, while in office BP, there was no clear association with no differences with and without diabetes. While the relative association of BP to CV death risk was similar in diabetes compared with no diabetes (mean interaction P = .80, daytime interaction P = .97, and nighttime interaction P = .32), increased event rates occurred in diabetes for all ABPM parameters for CV death and all-cause death. White-coat hypertension was not associated with risk for CV death (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.03) and slightly reduced risk for all-cause death in no diabetes (hazard ratio 0.89; confidence interval 0.81-0.98) but without significant interaction between diabetes and no diabetes. Sustained hypertension and masked hypertension in diabetes and no diabetes were associated with even higher risk. There were no significant interactions in hypertensive phenotypes between diabetes and no diabetes and CV death risk (interaction P = .26), while some interaction was present for all-cause death (interaction P = .043) and non-CV death (interaction P = .053). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes increased the risk for all-cause death, CV, and non-CV death at every level of office and ambulatory BP. Masked and sustained hypertension confer to the highest risk, while white-coat hypertension appears grossly neutral without interaction of relative risk between diabetes and no diabetes. These results support recommendations of international guidelines for strict BP control and using ABPM for classification and assessment of risk and control of hypertension, particularly in patients with diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Clinician response after receipt of abnormal pediatric ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - characteristics associated with inertia and action.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) is recommended for diagnosis and management of hypertension. We aimed to identify characteristics associated with physician action after receipt of abnormal findings. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients 5-22 years old who underwent 24-h ABPM between 2003-2022, met criteria for masked or ambulatory hypertension, and had a pediatric nephrology clinic visit within 2 weeks of ABPM. "Action" was defined as medication change/initiation, lifestyle or adherence counseling, evaluation ordered, or interpretation with no change. Characteristics of children with/without 1 or more actions were compared using Student t-tests and Chi-square. Regression analyses explored the independent association of patient characteristics with physician action. RESULTS: 115 patients with masked (n = 53) and ambulatory (n = 62) hypertension were included: mean age 13.0 years, 48% female, 38% Black race, 21% with chronic kidney disease, and 25% overweight/obesity. 97 (84%) encounters had a documented physician action. Medication change (52%), evaluation ordered (40%), and prescribed lifestyle change (35%) were the most common actions. Adherence counseling for medication and lifestyle recommendations were documented in 3% of encounters. 24-h, wake SBP load, and sleep DBP load were significantly higher among those with physician action. Patients with > 1 action had greater adiposity, SBP, and dipping. Neither age, obesity, nor kidney disease were independently associated with physician action. CONCLUSIONS: While most abnormal ABPMs were acted upon, 16% did not have a documented action. Greater BP load was one of the few characteristics associated with physician action. Of potential actions, adherence counseling was underutilized.

The 5 Ws of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.

Blood pressure (BP) measurement is affected by multiple variables which influence clinical management decisions and patient outcomes. Around 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) avoids incorrect diagnosis of hypertension (HT), and unnecessary treatment and provides the best prediction of cardiovascular (CV) risk. Clinically important phenotypes of HT such as masked HT (masked HT), white coat HT (white coat HT), and nocturnal HT (nocturnal HT) may be missed by not incorporating ambulatory BP monitoring in practice. However, lack of device availability, operational difficulties, and cost remain barriers to its widespread acceptance in India. In this review, we discuss the when, what, who, why, and where (5Ws) relevant to ABPM measurement.