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.

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.

Templer's death anxiety scale on the relationship between white coat hypertension and anxiety: A cross-sectional study.

The relationship between white coat hypertension (WCH) and anxiety remains not fully elucidated. This study aims to investigate the correlation between WCH and Templer's Death Anxiety Scale (T-DAS) questionnaire. Asymptomatic individuals with a familial history of sudden cardiac death or acute myocardial infarction within the last year, who presented at our cardiology outpatient clinic, were enrolled in this prospective, single-center, cross-sectional study. Among those with elevated blood pressure in the outpatient clinic setting, participants were categorized into normotensive and WCH groups through 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Demographic features, laboratory parameters, and T-DAS scores were documented. Logistic regression and sensitivity analyses were conducted to ascertain WCH occurrence. Among 324 consecutive participants, 90 were diagnosed with WCH. T-DAS scores were significantly elevated in the WCH subgroup, particularly among those seeking early medical attention following bereavement. Multivariable logistic regression highlighted gender, BMI, heart rate, T-DAS, and admission time as independent correlates of WCH. Significantly, T-DAS exhibited the third most substantial contribution to the regression analysis, following admission time and heart rate. The multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating T-DAS exhibited high robustness, discrimination, fit, and calibration, with a Brier score of 0.106, adjusted R2 of 0.576, and C-statistic of 0.905 (95% CI: 0.871-0.940, p < 0.001). T-DAS, with a threshold of >8, demonstrated 48% sensitivity and 90% specificity in detecting WCH. Additionally, decision curve analysis verified that the model including T-DAS offers a net benefit in detecting WCH. This study unveils a potential association between WCH and death anxiety.

White Coat Hypertension & Cardiovascular Outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to inform the reader of the complexity of blood pressure responses when comparing blood pressure measured in the medical environment to that outside the medical environment. In addition, we summarize what is known about current predictors of white coat hypertension, reevaluate the relationship of white coat hypertension to cardiovascular outcomes, and provide some clinical guidance on management. RECENT FINDINGS: Differences in outcomes exist when white coat effect occurs in unmedicated people versus the white coat effects in those on antihypertensive therapy. White coat hypertension is relatively common, carries a small but definite increase in cardiovascular risk, and is prone to conversion to sustained hypertension. Future research will hopefully tease out the roles of ancillary findings that characterize a white coat hypertensive (like modest elevations in creatinine, glucose and triglycerides) in the elevated cardiovascular risk, and test the effectiveness of mitigation strategies in these patients.

Prevalence of masked hypertension in attended versus unattended office blood pressure measurement.

There is a controversial debate regarding whether unattended blood pressure (BP) measurement should be regarded as the new gold standard of office BP measurement. Unattended BP measurement eliminates the white-coat effect and reduces external influences on the patient. On the other hand, it might underestimate real-life BP. The present study compares the prevalence of masked hypertension using attended versus unattended office BP measurements. We performed a cross-sectional study on 213 patients in a general practitioner's outpatient clinic and compared attended and unattended office BP with 24h-ambulatory BP monitoring (24h-ABPM). Masked hypertension was defined as pressure ≥135/85 mmHg in daytime ABPM with office systolic BP < 140/90 mmHg. Median attended and unattended office BPs were 140/86 and 134/80 mmHg with a median 24h-BP of 129/79 mmHg and daytime ABP of 133/82 mmHg. The number of patients with masked hypertension was 45/213 (21.2%) using unattended and 23/213 (10.8%) using attended office BP measurements (p < .0001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a 7.4 mmHg systolic and 6.2 mmHg diastolic bias between the attended versus unattended office BP, and two systolic and -1.7 mmHg diastolic biases between the unattended office BP and daytime ambulatory BP. In linear regression analysis, an unattended office BP of 134 mmHg corresponded to 140 mmHg in attended BP measurement. Using a cut-off of 135/85 mmHg instead of 140/90 mmHg in unattended office BP measurement, the rate of masked hypertension was 26/213 (12.2%). Thus, unattended office BP measurement results in a substantial increase in the prevalence of masked hypertension using the traditional definition of hypertension. The present findings suggest that it might be reasonable to use a definition of 135/85 mmHg.

Performance of Home-Based and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Obese Children and Their Correlation With End Organ Damage.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of childhood obesity has led to a corresponding increase in hypertension among children, necessitating early identification of subclinical target organ damage for accurate cardiovascular risk assessment. However, in the pediatric population, there is a paucity of literature comparing ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring, and this knowledge gap is exacerbated by limited access to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) facilities, particularly in developing countries, where pediatricians often resort to home blood BP monitoring as the preferred option. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study with 60 obese children (aged 5-18 years) at tertiary health care in central India, we aimed to comprehensively characterize blood pressure profiles, including office, ambulatory, and home, and investigated their correlations with indicators of end-organ damage. RESULTS: Among 60 children, 26 (43.3%) participants were found to be hypertensive based on 24-hour-ABPM evaluation. Masked hypertension (MH) and white coat hypertension (WCH) were observed in 21.6% and 13.3%, respectively. Surprisingly, 20% of participants were identified as hypertensive through 7-day home BP monitoring (HBPM). A notable discordance of 36.6% was between HBPM and ABPM results. Moreover, 26.7% of the children had end-organ damage, with higher odds associated with night-time systolic ambulatory hypertension in the adjusted regression model (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.10, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights 24-hour ABPM's vital role in classifying hypertensive status, especially in high-risk children. The diagnostic performance of HBPM shows poor sensitivity in detecting MH and lower specificity in identifying WCH compared to ABPM. This limitation translates to missed opportunities for early preventive interventions.

White-Coat Hypertension: Pathophysiological and Clinical Aspects: Excellence Award for Hypertension Research 2020.

Few issues of modern cardiovascular medicine have been as controversial as the relationship between white-coat hypertension (WCH), that is, a common condition in which office blood pressure is elevated while out-of-office blood pressure (ambulatory blood pressure or home blood pressure) is normal. While earlier studies showed no increased risk of cardiovascular events in WCH compared with the normotensive state, more recent studies have changed this conclusion by showing that an increased cardiovascular risk represents a trait of this hypertensive phenotype. The present article will review a number of issues related to WCH, that is, its definition, pathophysiological background, clinical alterations, and prognostic significance. This will be done by considering the available evidence published during the last decades, with special focus on the data collected in PAMELA (Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni)-a research project performed with a cross-sectional and longitudinal design, which has provided a series of novel clinical information on WCH throughout the years. The final part of the article will discuss the therapeutic implications of the abovementioned evidence, as well as some controversial or still undefined issues related to WCH, whose investigation will be an important goal to pursue by future research.

Pediatric Ambulatory Blood Pressure Classification: The Case for a Change.

In 1997, Soergel et al1 published the first set of normative values for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in children. Since then, the clinical utility of ABPM has increased dramatically, and now, ABPM is accepted as the standard method to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension in children. Despite significant progress in the field of pediatric ABPM, many important questions remain unanswered. One of the most controversial issues is how to define ambulatory hypertension in children. The purpose of this review is to discuss the limitations of the current pediatric ABPM classification scheme and to provide the justification and rationale for a new classification.

Diagnostic Performance of Office versus Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is the most prominent risk factor in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). No study so far assessed in parallel the prevalence, control, and phenotypes of blood pressure (BP) or the accuracy of currently recommended office BP diagnostic thresholds in diagnosing elevated ambulatory BP in KTRs. METHODS: 205 stable KTRs underwent office BP measurements and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Hypertension was defined as follows: (1) office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents following the current European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) guidelines, (2) office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents following the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines, (3) ABPM ≥130/80 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents, and (4) ABPM ≥125/75 mm Hg or use of antihypertensive agents. RESULTS: Hypertension prevalence by office BP was 88.3% with ESC/ESH and 92.7% with ACC/AHA definitions compared to 94.1 and 98.5% at relevant ABPM thresholds. Control rates among hypertensive patients were 69.6 and 43.7% with office BP compared to 38.3 and 21.3% with ABPM, respectively. Both for prevalence (κ-statistics = 0.52, p < 0.001 and 0.32, and p < 0.001) and control rates (κ-statistics = 0.21, p < 0.001 and 0.22, and p < 0.001, respectively), there was moderate or fair agreement of the 2 techniques. White-coat and masked hypertension were diagnosed in 6.7 and 39.5% of patients at the 140/90 threshold and 5.9 and 31.7% of patients at the 130/80 threshold. An office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg had 35.3% sensitivity and 84.9% specificity for the diagnosis of 24-h BP ≥130/80 mm Hg. An office BP ≥130/80 mm Hg had 59.7% sensitivity and 73.9% specificity for the diagnosis of 24-h BP ≥125/75 mm Hg. Receiver operating curve analyses confirmed this poor diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: At both corresponding thresholds studied, ABPM revealed particularly high hypertension prevalence and poor BP control in KTRs. Misclassification of KTRs by office BP is substantial, due to particularly high rates of masked hypertension. The diagnostic accuracy of office BP for identifying elevated ambulatory BP is poor. These findings call for a wider use of ABPM in KTRs.

Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings After Zero or Five Minutes of Rest.

[Figure: see text].

Smoking and overweight associated with masked uncontrolled hypertension: a Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) Sub-Study.

PURPOSE: The Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) Study investigated the relationship between target office diastolic blood pressure (BP) ≤80, ≤85 or ≤90 mmHg and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in 18,790 patients aged 50-80 years. The home BP sub-study enrolled 926 patients and the aim was to clarify whether the separation into the BP target groups in the office prevailed in the out-of-office setting. The present study aimed to identify variables that characterised masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sub-study participants took their home BP when office BP had been up titrated. The cut-off for normal or high BP was set to ≥135/85 mmHg at home and ≥140/90 mmHg in the office. We analysed data by using multivariate and stepwise multivariate logistic regression with home and office BP combinations as the dependent variables. RESULTS: WUCH was associated with lower body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confident intervals (CIs) 0.88-0.96, p < 0.001). MUCH was associated with smoking (OR 1.89, 95% CIs 1.25-2.86, p = 0.0025) and with lower baseline heart rate (OR 0.98, 95% CIs 0.97-0.99, p = 0.03) and higher BMI (OR 1.03, CIs 1.00-1.06, p = 0.04). MUCH remained associated with smoking (OR 2.76, 95% CIs 1.76-4.35, p < 0.0001) also when using ≥140/90 mmHg as the cut-off for both home and office BP. MUCH was also associated with higher BMI (OR 1.05, 95% CIs 1.01-1.09, p = 0.009) while WUCH was associated with lower BMI (OR 0.93, 95% CIs 0.90-0.97, p = 0.0005) when using ≥140/90 mmHg as a cut-off. CONCLUSION: Our data support that 'reversed or masked' treated but uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is common and constitutes about 25% of treated hypertensive patients. This entity (MUCH) is rather strongly associated with current smoking and overweight while uncontrolled white coat (office) hypertension (WUCH) is associated with lower BMI.

Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, however it might have a problem detecting white coat hypertension (WCHT) and masked hypertension (MHT). Home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) may be an alternative, but its diagnostic performance is inconclusive relative to CBPM. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to estimate the performance of CBPM and HBPM compared with ambulatory blood pressure measurement(ABPM) and to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT. METHODS: Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were searched up to 23rd January 2020. Studies having diagnostic tests as CBPM or HBPM with reference standard as ABPM, reporting sensitivity and specificity of both tests and/or proportion of WCHT or MHT were eligible. Diagnostic performance of CBPM and HBPM were pooled using bivariate mixed-effect regression model. Random effect model was applied to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of CBPM, when using 24-h ABPM as the reference standard, were 74% (95% CI: 65-82%), 79% (95% CI: 69%, 87%), and 11.11 (95% CI: 6.82, 14.20), respectively. Pooled prevalence of WCHT and MHT were 0.24 (95% CI 0.19, 0.29) and 0.29 (95% CI 0.20, 0.38). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of HBPM were 71% (95% CI 61%, 80%), 82% (95% CI 77%, 87%), and 11.60 (95% CI 8.98, 15.13), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performances of HBPM were slightly higher than CBPM. However, the prevalence of MHT was high in negative CBPM and some persons with normal HBPM had elevated BP from 24-h ABPM. Therefore, ABPM is still necessary for confirming the diagnosis of HT.

Prognostic Significance of Ambulatory BP Monitoring in CKD: A Report from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study.

BACKGROUND: Whether ambulatory BP monitoring is of value in evaluating risk for outcomes in patients with CKD is not clear. METHODS: We followed 1502 participants of the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study for a mean of 6.72 years. We evaluated, as exposures, ambulatory BP monitoring profiles (masked uncontrolled hypertension, white-coat effect, sustained hypertension, and controlled BP), mean ambulatory BP monitoring and clinic BPs, and diurnal variation in BP-reverse dipper (higher at nighttime), nondipper, and dipper (lower at nighttime). Outcomes included cardiovascular disease (a composite of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease), kidney disease (a composite of ESKD or halving of the eGFR), and mortality. RESULTS: Compared with having controlled BP, the presence of masked uncontrolled hypertension independently associated with higher risk of the cardiovascular outcome and the kidney outcome, but not with all-cause mortality. Higher mean 24-hour systolic BP associated with higher risk of cardiovascular outcome, kidney outcome, and mortality, independent of clinic BP. Participants with the reverse-dipper profile of diurnal BP variation were at higher risk of the kidney outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of participants with CKD, BP metrics derived from ambulatory BP monitoring are associated with cardiovascular outcomes, kidney outcomes, and mortality, independent of clinic BP. Masked uncontrolled hypertension and mean 24-hour BP associated with high risk of cardiovascular disease and progression of kidney disease. Alterations of diurnal variation in BP are associated with high risk of progression of kidney disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease. These data support the wider use of ambulatory BP monitoring in the evaluation of hypertension in patients with CKD. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/JASN/2020_09_24_JASN2020030236.mp3.

Effects of Intensive Versus Standard Office-Based Hypertension Treatment Strategy on White-Coat Effect and Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension: From the SPRINT ABPM Ancillary Study.

Guidelines recommend using out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurements to confirm the diagnoses of hypertension and in the titration of antihypertensive medication. The prevalence of out-of-office BP phenotypes for an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <140/90 mm Hg has been reported. However, the prevalence of these phenotypes when targeting an office systolic/diastolic BP goal <120/80 is unknown. The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) Ambulatory BP Ancillary study evaluated out-of-office BP using ambulatory BP monitoring in 897 participants 27 months after randomization to intensive versus standard BP targets (office systolic BP <120 versus <140 mm Hg). We used office and daytime BP to assess the proportion of participants with white-coat effect (standard target: office BP ≥140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP ≥120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP <120/80 mm Hg) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (standard target: office BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135/85 mm Hg versus intensive target: office BP <120/80 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥120/80 mm Hg) in each treatment arm. The prevalence of white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension was 9% and 34%, in both treatment groups. Among participants with uncontrolled office BP, white-coat effect was present in 20% and 23% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. Among participants with controlled office BP, masked uncontrolled hypertension was present in 62% and 56% in the intensive and standard groups, respectively. In conclusion, a more intensive BP target resulted in a similar proportion of patients with white-coat effect and masked uncontrolled hypertension compared with a standard target.

Current status of white coat hypertension: where are we?

White coat hypertension (WCH) is characterised by an elevated clinic blood pressure (BP) with normal ambulatory or home BP. It is well recognised in clinical practice and occurs in approximately one-third of untreated patients with elevated clinic BP. Current evidence suggests that WCH is associated with cardiovascular risk factors, including the development of sustained hypertension and the presence of target organ damage. However, its effects on cardiovascular outcomes remain a matter of debate. There is also insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to determine whether WCH warrants treatment. This narrative review aims to provide an update on the current understanding of WCH. It focuses on the clinical characteristics and potential implications of WCH, its relationship to cardiovascular risk and the evidence regarding treatment. Gaps in existing research are also highlighted.

Blood pressure and heart rate variability and baroreflex sensitivity in white-coat, masked, and sustained hypertension.

We investigated blood pressure (BP) and heart rate variability and baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) in white-coat, masked and sustained hypertension in untreated patients (n = 645). Normotension and white-coat, masked, and sustained hypertension were defined according to the clinic (cutoff 140/90 mmHg) and 24-h ambulatory (130/80 mmHg) BPs. The Finometer device recorded beat-to-beat finger BP and electrocardiograms in the supine and standing positions for the computation of frequency-domain power-spectral BP and heart rate variability indexes and BRS. In multivariate analysis, BP variability indexes in the supine position differed significantly (P < 0.0001) for both low-frequency (LF) and high-frequency (HF) components and the LF/HF ratio, with the lowest LF and HF power and highest LF/HF ratio in white-coat hypertension (n = 28), the highest LF and HF power and lowest LF/HF ratio in sustained hypertension (n = 198), and intermediate values in normotension (n = 189) and masked hypertension (n = 230). These differences diminished in the standing position, being significant (P < 0.0001) only for the LF component variability. The LF/HF ratio in BP in the supine position decreased with advancing age in normotension and sustained hypertension (P ≤ 0.03) but not white-coat or masked hypertension (P ≥ 0.12). For heart rate variability, a significant difference was observed only for the LF component in the supine position (P = 0.0005), which was lowest in white-coat hypertension. BRS in masked and sustained hypertension was significantly (P ≤ 0.0001) lower than that in normotension in both supine and standing positions and decreased with advancing age (P ≤ 0.0001). In conclusion, masked, but not white-coat, hypertension showed similar patterns of, but slightly less severe, changes in BP and heart rate variability and BRS to sustained hypertension.

The Role First-Day Readings Play in a 3-Day Schedule of Self-Monitoring Home Blood Pressure Based on Prognostic Data. VAMPAHICA Study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal schedule for self-monitoring home BP (SMHBP) readings is enormously important in the diagnosis of different phenotypes related to hypertension. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic capacity of a 3-day SMHBP schedule when using or suppressing the first-day measurements in compiling the results. METHODS: A total of 767 newly diagnosed, nontreated patients with no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were followed for 6.2 years. As a baseline, office BP measurements were taken for all the patients who then went on to follow a 3-day SMHBP schedule, taking 2 readings in the morning and 2 in the evening. The prognostic calculation was performed with CVD variables. The prognostic capacity of the 3-day schedule was evaluated with and without the first-day readings (12 and 8 readings). RESULTS: A total of 223 normotensive subjects (NT), 271 subjects with sustained hypertension (SHT), and 184 white-coat hypertensive subjects (WCH) were followed. The distribution of 98 (14.4%) nonfatal CV events during the follow-up was as follows: WCH 21 (11.4%), NT 9 (4.0%), and SHT 68 (25.1%). No statistically significant differences were observed in the risk of CV events (OR) for the 2 groups of hypertensives, irrespective of the schedule of readings used (SHT with vs. without first-day readings: 8.81 (4.28-18.15) vs. 8.61 (4.15-17.85) and WCH with vs. without first-day readings: 2.71(1.13-6.47) vs. 3.40 (1.49-7.78)). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that first-day readings do not need to be discarded in order to calculate the final value of an SMHBP schedule.

Blood pressure phenotype reproducibility in CKD outpatients: a clinical practice report.

Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is encouraged by recent hypertension guidelines for assessing BP phenotypes. These showed acceptable reproducibility in the short term, but few data exist about long-term reproducibility, particularly for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. We evaluated changes of the BP phenotypes at 6 and 12 months in 280 consecutive non-dialysis CKD outpatients (186 males, age 71 ± 12 years, eGFR 38 ± 13 ml/min/1.73), without any change in drug therapy. Elevated BP is defined as office BP > 140/90 and home BP > 135/85 mmHg for defining the following BP phenotypes: sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH); white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH); masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH); and controlled hypertension (CH). At baseline, the prevalence of the phenotypes was SUCH 36.6%, CH 30.1%, WUCH 25.4% and MUCH 7.9%, and it was similar at 6 months and 12 months. On the other hand, individual phenotype reproducibility at 12 months was poor both overall (38.0%) and across the different phenotypes (SUCH 53.9%, WUCH 32.4% and CH 32.1%, MUCH 9.1%). Patients who were not maintaining the same phenotype (non-concordant) were not distinguished by age, sex, BMI, eGFR, presence of diabetes or cardiovascular disease, or pharmacological therapy. When reproducibility of BP phenotypes both at 6 months and at 12 months was assessed, it was very low (19.6%), particularly for MUCH (0%), CH (14%) and WUCH (15.5%), while it was 31% for SUCH. In a CKD cohort, the overall prevalence of the different BP phenotypes defined by office and home BP remains constant over time. However, only 38% of patients maintained the same phenotype at 12 months, suggesting a poor reproducibility over time for the BP phenotypes.