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.

Relationship between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and mortality: an observational cohort study in 59 124 patients.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory blood pressure provides a more comprehensive assessment than clinic blood pressure, and has been reported to better predict health outcomes than clinic or home pressure. We aimed to examine associations of clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a large cohort of primary care patients referred for assessment of hypertension. METHODS: We did an observational cohort study using clinic and ambulatory blood pressure data obtained from March 1, 2004, to Dec 31, 2014, from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Registry. This registry included patients from 223 primary care centres from the Spanish National Health System in all 17 regions of Spain. Mortality data (date and cause) were ascertained by a computerised search of the vital registry of the Spanish National Institute of Statistics. Complete data were available for age, sex, all blood pressure measures, and BMI. For each study participant, follow-up was from the date of their recruitment to the date of death or Dec 31, 2019, whichever occurred first. Cox models were used to estimate associations between usual clinic or ambulatory blood pressure and mortality, adjusted for confounders and additionally for alternative measures of blood pressure. For each measure of blood pressure, we created five groups (ie, fifths) defined by quintiles of that measure among those who subsequently died. FINDINGS: During a median follow-up of 9·7 years, 7174 (12·1%) of 59 124 patients died, including 2361 (4·0%) from cardiovascular causes. J-shaped associations were observed for several blood pressure measures. Among the top four baseline-defined fifths, 24-h systolic blood pressure was more strongly associated with all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·41 per 1 - SD increment [95% CI 1·36-1·47]) than clinic systolic blood pressure (1·18 [1·13-1·23]). After adjustment for clinic blood pressure, 24-h blood pressure remained strongly associated with all-cause deaths (HR 1·43 [95% CI 1·37-1·49]), but the association between clinic blood pressure and all-cause death was attenuated when adjusted for 24-h blood pressure (1·04 [1·00-1·09]). Compared with the informativeness of clinic systolic blood pressure (100%), night-time systolic blood pressure was most informative about risk of all-cause death (591%) and cardiovascular death (604%). Relative to blood pressure within the normal range, elevated all-cause mortality risks were observed for masked hypertension (HR 1·24 [95% CI 1·12-1·37]) and sustained hypertension (1·24 [1·15-1·32]), but not white-coat hypertension, and elevated cardiovascular mortality risks were observed for masked hypertension (1·37 [1·15-1·63]) and sustained hypertension (1·38 [1·22-1·55]), but not white-coat hypertension. INTERPRETATION: Ambulatory blood pressure, particularly night-time blood pressure, was more informative about the risk of all-cause death and cardiovascular death than clinic blood pressure. FUNDING: Spanish Society of Hypertension, Lacer Laboratories, UK Medical Research Council, Health Data Research UK, National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centres (Oxford and University College London Hospitals), and British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence.

Relationship between Clinic and Ambulatory Blood-Pressure Measurements and Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the influence of ambulatory blood pressure on prognosis derives mainly from population-based studies and a few relatively small clinical investigations. This study examined the associations of blood pressure measured in the clinic (clinic blood pressure) and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a large cohort of patients in primary care. METHODS: We analyzed data from a registry-based, multicenter, national cohort that included 63,910 adults recruited from 2004 through 2014 in Spain. Clinic and 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure data were examined in the following categories: sustained hypertension (elevated clinic and elevated 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure), "white-coat" hypertension (elevated clinic and normal 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure), masked hypertension (normal clinic and elevated 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure), and normotension (normal clinic and normal 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure). Analyses were conducted with Cox regression models, adjusted for clinic and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressures and for confounders. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 3808 patients died from any cause, and 1295 of these patients died from cardiovascular causes. In a model that included both 24-hour and clinic measurements, 24-hour systolic pressure was more strongly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.58 per 1-SD increase in pressure; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 1.60, after adjustment for clinic blood pressure) than the clinic systolic pressure (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.04, after adjustment for 24-hour blood pressure). Corresponding hazard ratios per 1-SD increase in pressure were 1.55 (95% CI, 1.53 to 1.57, after adjustment for clinic and daytime blood pressures) for nighttime ambulatory systolic pressure and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.52 to 1.56, after adjustment for clinic and nighttime blood pressures) for daytime ambulatory systolic pressure. These relationships were consistent across subgroups of age, sex, and status with respect to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and antihypertensive treatment. Masked hypertension was more strongly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.12 to 3.79) than sustained hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.31) or white-coat hypertension (hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38 to 2.32). Results for cardiovascular mortality were similar to those for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory blood-pressure measurements were a stronger predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than clinic blood-pressure measurements. White-coat hypertension was not benign, and masked hypertension was associated with a greater risk of death than sustained hypertension. (Funded by the Spanish Society of Hypertension and others.).

Cuff-Based Oscillometric Central and Brachial Blood Pressures Obtained Through ABPM are Similarly Associated with Renal Organ Damage in Arterial Hypertension.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Central blood pressure (BP) has been suggested to be a better estimator of hypertension-associated risks. We aimed to evaluate the association of 24-hour central BP, in comparison with 24-hour peripheral BP, with the presence of renal organ damage in hypertensive patients. METHODS: Brachial and central (calculated by an oscillometric system through brachial pulse wave analysis) office BP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) data and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) were measured in 208 hypertensive patients. Renal organ damage was evaluated by means of the albumin to creatinine ratio and the estimated glomerular filtration rate. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (25.9%) were affected by renal organ damage, displaying either microalbuminuria (urinary albumin excretion ≥30 mg/g creatinine) or an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Compared to those without renal abnormalities, hypertensive patients with kidney damage had higher values of office brachial systolic BP (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP), and 24-h, daytime, and nighttime central and brachial SBP and PP. They also had a blunted nocturnal decrease in both central and brachial BP, and higher values of aortic PWV. After adjustment for age, gender, and antihypertensive treatment, only ABPM-derived BP estimates (both central and brachial) showed significant associations with the presence of renal damage. Odds ratios for central BP estimates were not significantly higher than those obtained for brachial BP. CONCLUSION: Compared with peripheral ABPM, cuff-based oscillometric central ABPM does not show a closer association with presence of renal organ damage in hypertensive patients. More studies, however, need to be done to better identify the role of central BP in clinical practice.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in daily clinical practice - the Spanish ABPM Registry experience.

Many patients are hypertensive at the medical settings but show normal blood pressure out of the doctor's office, and are classified as white-coat hypertensives. On the other hand, many patients with controlled hypertension at the clinic show ambulatory blood pressure levels above the thresholds considered for an adequate blood pressure control, known as having masked hypertension. Using data from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry (Spanish ABPM Registry), a national program developed to promote the use of the ambulatory technique for hypertension management in daily practice, we have reviewed the main strengths of this approach, that is the ability to detect discrepancies of blood pressure status with respect to office blood pressure measurement, and to better assess accurate rates of hypertension control. White-coat hypertension within patients with elevated office blood pressure, and masked hypertension within office-controlled patients affected one of three patients in each office status. On the other hand, rates of ambulatory blood pressure control (50%) doubled those of office blood pressure control (25%), still remaining half the patients uncontrolled. We think that a systematic use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and strategies to improve blood pressure control constitute key priorities in hypertension management.

Office and ambulatory blood pressure control in hypertensive patients treated with different two-drug and three-drug combinations.

There is scarce information regarding ambulatory blood pressure (BP) achieved in daily practice with a wide range of antihypertensive drug combinations. We looked for differences in office and ambulatory BP among major drug combinations of two and three antihypertensive agents from a different drugs class. A total of 17187 patients treated with six types of two-drug combinations and 9724 treated with six types of three-drug combinations from the Spanish ABPM Registry were analyzed. We compared achieved office and ambulatory BP, as well as office (< 140/90 mmHg) and ambulatory (24-hour BP < 130/80; day BP < 135/85, and night BP < 120/70 mmHg) BP control among groups. The combination of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers with diuretics and the triple combination of RAS blockers with diuretics and calcium channel blockers (CCB) were associated with lower values of 24-hour, daytime and nighttime BP, as well as more pronounced nocturnal BP dip. Compared with such combinations (reference), other double combinations had lower rates of ambulatory BP control. Moreover, triple combinations containing alpha blockers also had lower rates of ambulatory BP control. We conclude that even with similar office BP control, differences exist among antihypertensive two-drug and three-drug combinations with respect to ambulatory BP control achieved during treatment, with RAS blockers/diuretics and RAS blockers/CCBs/diuretics obtaining better control rates. This can help physicians choose among drug combinations in order to obtain further ambulatory BP reductions.

High prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension in people with treated hypertension.

AIM: There are limited data on the quality of treated blood pressure (BP) control during normal daily life, and in particular, the prevalence of 'masked uncontrolled hypertension' (MUCH) in people with treated and seemingly well-controlled BP is unknown. This is important because masked hypertension in 'treatment naïve' patients is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events. We therefore conducted the first study to define the prevalence and characteristics of MUCH among a large sample of hypertensive patients in routine clinical practice in whom BP was treated and controlled to recommended clinic BP goals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data from the Spanish Society of Hypertension ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) Registry and identified patients with treated and controlled BP according to current international guidelines (clinic BP <140/90 mmHg). Masked uncontrolled hypertension was diagnosed in these patients if despite controlled clinic BP, the mean 24-h ABPM average remained elevated (24-h systolic BP ≥130 mmHg and/or 24-h diastolic BP ≥80 mmHg). From 62 788 patients with treated BP in the Spanish registry, we identified 14 840 with treated and controlled clinic BP, of whom 4608 patients (31.1%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 59.4 years, 59.7% men). The prevalence of MUCH was significantly higher in males, patients with borderline clinic BP (130-9/80-9 mmHg), and patients at high cardiovascular risk (smokers, diabetes, obesity). Masked uncontrolled hypertension was most often because of poor control of nocturnal BP, with the proportion of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that solely attributable to daytime BP elevation (24.3 vs. 12.9%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control in patients with treated and well-controlled clinic BP is high. Clinic BP monitoring alone is thus inadequate to optimize BP control because many patients have an elevated nocturnal BP. These findings suggest that ABPM should become more routine to confirm BP control, especially in higher risk groups and/or those with borderline control of clinic BP.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Current status and future perspectives. / Monitorización ambulatoria de la presión arterial. Situación actual y perspectivas futuras.

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) is considered the best method for obtaining a reliable estimation of the true blood pressure. Average values obtained during the whole 24-hour period, or during daytime and nighttime periods are better correlated with the risk of mortality and cardiovascular disease compared to clinic or office blood pressure. Indeed, nighttime blood pressure, a measure only obtained through ABPM, is the most powerful risk predictor. ABPM is complementary to clinic blood pressure measurement and allows the definition of blood pressure phenotypes, such as "white-coat or masked hypertension, when clinic and ABPM measurements show discrepancy in normal values. Additional potentially relevant features include blood pressure variability, such as nocturnal blood pressure decline, morning surge or short-term variability, as determined by standard deviation or the coefficient of variation.

New therapeutic targets in hypertension. / Nuevas dianas terapéuticas en hipertensión.

Even though a large number of antihypertensive drugs are suitable for hypertension treatment, some new therapeutic targets are recently under development. Most are focused in the treatment of resistant hypertension, added to the drugs currently available for treating such condition. Others have specific particularities in their duration of action, which allows their use once per month or every six months and could become alternatives to the current antihypertensive treatment. Most interesting therapeutic targets are the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, through interference with the RNA of the angiotensinogen, the inhibition of brain aminopeptidase III, the inhibition of aldosterone synthase, and new non-steroidal aldosterone receptor antagonists. In addition, dual endothelin receptor antagonists or agonists of the NPR1 receptor, the main effector of natriuretic peptides are other new interesting therapeutic possibilities. In this paper, we review clinical data on the development of the most interesting molecules acting through these new therapeutic targets.

Impact of timing of antihypertensive treatment on mortality: an observational study from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Whether bedtime versus morning administration of antihypertensive therapy is beneficial on outcomes is controversial. We evaluated the risk of total and cardiovascular mortality in a very large observational cohort of treated hypertensive patients, according to the timing of their usual treatment administration (morning versus evening). METHODS: Vital status and cause of death were obtained from death certificates of 28 406 treated hypertensive patients (mean age 62 years, 53% male individuals), enrolled in the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) Registry between 2004 and 2014. Among the 28 406 patients, most (86%) received their medication exclusively in the morning; whilst 13% were treated exclusively in the evening or at bedtime. Follow-up was for a median of 9.7 years and 4345 deaths occurred, of which 1478 were cardiovascular deaths. RESULTS: Using Cox-models adjusted for clinical confounders and 24-h SBP, and compared with patients treated in the morning (reference group), all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.93-1.09) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 0.91-1.19) was not significantly different in those receiving evening medication dosing. The results were consistent in all the subgroups of patients analysed. CONCLUSION: In this very large observational study, morning versus bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medication made no difference to the subsequent risk of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. These findings are in accordance with results from a recent randomized controlled trial and do not support the hypothesis of a specific beneficial effect of night-time antihypertensive treatment dosing on risk of all-cause or cardiovascular death.

Prognostic Relevance of Short-Term Blood Pressure Variability. The Spanish ABPM Registry.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic relevance of short-term blood pressure (BP) variability in hypertension is not clearly established. We aimed to evaluate the association of short-term BP variability, with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in a large cohort of patients with hypertension. METHODS: We selected 59 124 patients from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry from 2004 to 2014 (median follow-up: 9.7 years). Systolic and diastolic BP SD and coefficient of variation from daytime and nighttime, weighted SD, weighted coefficient of variation, average real variability (mean of differences between consecutive readings), and BP variability ratio (ratio between systolic and diastolic 24-hour SD) were calculated through baseline 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Association with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were assessed by Cox regression models adjusted for clinical confounders and BP. RESULTS: Patients who died during follow-up had higher values of BP variability compared with those remaining alive. In adjusted models systolic and diastolic daytime and weighted SD and coefficient of variation, average real variability, as well as systolic nighttime SD and BP variability ratio were all significantly associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Hazard ratios for 1-SD increase in the systolic components ranged from 1.05 to 1.12 for all-cause mortality and from 1.07 to 1.17 for cardiovascular mortality. A daytime SD≥13 mm Hg, a nighttime and a weighted SD≥12 mm Hg, and an average real variability ≥10 mm Hg, all systolic, were independently associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term blood pressure variability shows a relatively weak but significant association with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with hypertension.

Clinic and ambulatory blood pressures, blood pressure phenotypes and mortality in patients with a previous stroke.

There is scarce evidence of the role of clinic and ambulatory BP indices, as well as blood pressure phenotypes in the prognosis of stroke survivors. We aimed to evaluate the association between ambulatory BP indices and mortality in patients with a previous stroke. Our study was an observational cohort study from individuals included in the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Registry from March 2004 to December 2014. The Cox model was used to estimate associations between usual clinic and ambulatory BP and mortality, adjusted for confounders and additionally for alternative measures of BP. Two thousand one hundred and eighty-three patients with a previous stroke were included. During a median of 9.2 years, 632 (28.9%) patients died: 236 (10.8%) from cardiovascular causes. In the confounder-adjusted model, clinic systolic BP was not associated with the risk of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. In contrast, systolic BP indices obtained through ABPM (24 h, day and night) were all associated with all-cause and cardiovascular death. In the simultaneous adjustment of daytime and night-time systolic BP, only night-time systolic BP remained significantly associated with all-cause and cardiovascular death: HR 1.35 (95% CI 01.21-1.51) and 1.44 (1.20-1.72), respectively. For diastolic BP, only night-time BP was associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: HR 1.32 (1.18-1.48) and 1.57 (1.31-1.88), respectively. According to the circadian pattern, a riser pattern was associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: HR 1.49 (1.18-1.87) and 1.70 (1.14-2.52), respectively. In conclusion, in patients who have suffered a stroke, night-time BP is the BP estimate most closely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

A blunted nocturnal blood pressure decline is associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that a blunted nocturnal blood pressure (BP) decline is associated with a poor prognosis. Nevertheless, it remains unclear if an abnormal dipping is deleterious per se or it merely reflects an elevated BP during sleep. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of nocturnal BP decline, with or without concomitant elevated nocturnal BP. METHODS: Vital status and cause of death were obtained from death certificates in 59 124 patients, enrolled in the Spanish ABPM Registry between 2004 and 2014 (median follow-up: 10 years). The association between night-to-day ratio (NDR) and dipping patterns (extreme dippers, dippers, reduced dippers, and risers) with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were evaluated by Cox-proportional models adjusted for clinical confounders and 24 h blood pressure. RESULTS: NDR was associated with all-cause mortality [hazard ratio for 1SD change: 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.17]. Reduced dippers (1.13; 1.06-1.20) and risers (1.41; 1.32-1.51) were associated with an increased risk of all-cause death, whereas extreme dippers (0.90; 0.79-1.02) were not. Elevated NDR (≥0.9) in the absence of elevated night SBP (<120 mmHg) was associated with an increased risk of death (1.13; 1.04-1.22), as well as elevated night SBP but normal NDR (1.38; 1.26-1.50), and the combination of both abnormalities (1.56; 1.46-1.66). Similar results were obtained for cardiovascular mortality. CONCLUSION: Abnormalities in the circadian pattern are associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. This is maintained even in the absence of nocturnal BP elevation.

Artificial Intelligence-Derived Risk Prediction: A Novel Risk Calculator Using Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure.

BACKGROUND: Quantification of total cardiovascular risk is essential for individualizing hypertension treatment. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel, machine-learning-derived model to predict cardiovascular mortality risk using office blood pressure (OBP) and ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). METHODS: The performance of the novel risk score was compared with existing risk scores, and the possibility of predicting ABP phenotypes utilizing clinical variables was assessed. Using data from 59 124 patients enrolled in the Spanish ABP Monitoring registry, machine-learning approaches (logistic regression, gradient-boosted decision trees, and deep neural networks) and stepwise forward feature selection were used. RESULTS: For the prediction of cardiovascular mortality, deep neural networks yielded the highest clinical performance. The novel mortality prediction models using OBP and ABP outperformed other risk scores. The area under the curve achieved by the novel approach, already when using OBP variables, was significantly higher when compared with the area under the curve of the Framingham risk score, Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2, and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease score. However, the prediction of cardiovascular mortality with ABP instead of OBP data significantly increased the area under the curve (0.870 versus 0.865; P=3.61×10-28), accuracy, and specificity, respectively. The prediction of ABP phenotypes (ie, white-coat, ambulatory, and masked hypertension) using clinical characteristics was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The receiver operating characteristic curves for cardiovascular mortality using ABP and OBP with deep neural network models outperformed all other risk metrics, indicating the potential for improving current risk scores by applying state-of-the-art machine learning approaches. The prediction of cardiovascular mortality using ABP data led to a significant increase in area under the curve and performance metrics.

Assessment and management of exaggerated blood pressure response to standing and orthostatic hypertension: consensus statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability.

Recent evidence suggests that an exaggerated blood pressure (BP) response to standing (ERTS) is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes, both in young and old individuals. In addition, ERTS has been shown to be an independent predictor of masked hypertension. In the vast majority of studies reporting on the prognostic value of orthostatic hypertension (OHT), the definition was based only on systolic office BP measurements. This consensus statement provides recommendations on the assessment and management of individuals with ERTS and/or OHT. ERTS is defined as an orthostatic increase in SBP at least 20 mmHg and OHT as an ERTS with standing SBP at least 140 mmHg. This statement recommends a standardized methodology to assess ERTS, by considering body and arm position, and the number and timing of BP measurements. ERTS/OHT should be confirmed in a second visit, to account for its limited reproducibility. The second assessment should evaluate BP changes from the supine to the standing posture. Ambulatory BP monitoring is recommended in most individuals with ERTS/OHT, especially if they have high-normal seated office BP. Implementation of lifestyle changes and close follow-up are recommended in individuals with ERTS/OHT and normotensive seated office BP. Whether antihypertensive treatment should be administered in the latter is unknown. Hypertensive patients with ERTS/OHT should be managed as any other hypertensive patient. Standardized standing BP measurement should be implemented in future epidemiological and interventional studies.

Blood pressure measurement and assessment of arterial structure and function: an expert group position paper.

Measuring blood pressure (BP) and investigating arterial hemodynamics are essential in understanding cardiovascular disease and assessing cardiovascular risk. Several methods are used to measure BP in the doctor's office, at home, or over 24 h under ambulatory conditions. Similarly, several noninvasive methods have been introduced for assessing arterial structure and function; these methods differ for the large arteries, the small ones, and the capillaries. Consequently, when studying arterial hemodynamics, the clinician is faced with a multitude of assessment methods whose technical details, advantages, and limitations are sometimes unclear. Moreover, the conditions and procedures for their optimal implementation, and/or the reference normality values for the parameters they yield are not always taken into sufficient consideration. Therefore, a practice guideline summarizing the main methods and their use in clinical practice is needed. This expert group position paper was developed by an international group of scientists after a two-day meeting during which each of the most used methods and techniques for blood pressure measurement and arterial function and structure evaluation were presented and discussed, focusing on their advantages, limitations, indications, normal values, and their pragmatic clinical application.

Cardio-ankle vascular index for predicting cardiovascular morbimortality and determinants for its progression in the prospective advanced approach to arterial stiffness (TRIPLE-A-Stiffness) study.

BACKGROUND: The cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) measure of arterial stiffness is associated with prevalent cardiovascular risk factors, while its predictive value for cardiovascular events remains to be established. The aim was to determine associations of CAVI with cardiovascular morbimortality (primary outcome) and all-cause mortality (secondary outcome), and to establish the determinants of CAVI progression. METHODS: TRIPLE-A-Stiffness, an international multicentre prospective longitudinal study, enrolled >2000 subjects ≥40 years old at 32 centres from 18 European countries. Of these, 1250 subjects (55% women) were followed for a median of 3.82 (2.81-4.69) years. FINDINGS: Unadjusted cumulative incidence rates of outcomes according to CAVI stratification were higher in highest stratum (CAVI > 9). Cox regression with adjustment for age, sex, and cardiovascular risk factors revealed that CAVI was associated with increased cardiovascular morbimortality (HR 1.25 per 1 increase; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.03-1.51) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.37 per 1 increase; 95% CI: 1.10-1.70) risk in subjects ≥60 years. In ROC analyses, CAVI optimal threshold was 9.25 (c-index 0.598; 0.542-0.654) and 8.30 (c-index 0.565; 0.512-0.618) in subjects ≥ or <60 years, respectively, to predict increased CV morbimortality. Finally, age, mean arterial blood pressure, anti-diabetic and lipid-lowering treatment were independent predictors of yearly CAVI progression adjusted for baseline CAVI. INTERPRETATION: The present study identified additional value for CAVI to predict outcomes after adjustment for CV risk factors, in particular for subjects ≥60 years. CAVI progression may represent a modifiable risk factor by treatments. FUNDING: International Society of Vascular Health (ISVH) and Fukuda Denshi, Japan.