Accuracy of screening strategies for masked hypertension: a large-scale nationwide study based on home blood pressure monitoring.

This study compared the ability of guideline-proposed office blood pressure (OBP) screening thresholds [European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines: 130/85 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines: 120/75 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg] and novel screening scores to identify normotensive individuals at high risk of having masked hypertension (MH) in an office setting. We cross-sectionally evaluated untreated participants with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg (n = 22,266) and an OBP < 130/80 mmHg (n = 10,005) who underwent home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) (derivation cohort) from 686 Brazilian sites. MH was defined according to criteria suggested by the ESH (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 135/85 mmHg), Brazilian Society of Cardiology (BSC) (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg) and ACC/AHA (OBP < 130/80 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg). Scores were generated from multivariable logistic regression coefficients between MH and clinical variables (OBP, age, sex, and BMI). Considering the ESH, BSC, and ACC/AHA criteria, 17.2%, 38.5%, and 21.2% of the participants had MH, respectively. Guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds yielded area under curve (AUC) values of 0.640 (for ESH criteria), 0.641 (for BSC criteria), and 0.619 (for ACC/AHA criteria) for predicting MH, while scores presented as continuous variables or quartiles yielded AUC values of 0.700 and 0.688 (for ESH criteria), 0.720 and 0.709 (for BSC criteria), and 0.671 and 0.661 (for ACC/AHA criteria), respectively. Further analyses performed with alternative untreated participants (validation cohort; n = 2807 with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; n = 1269 with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg) yielded similar AUC values. In conclusion, the accuracy of guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds in identifying individuals at high risk of having MH in an office setting is limited and is inferior to that yielded by scores derived from simple clinical variables.

Impact of hypertension phenotypes on the office and 24-h pulse wave velocity and augmentation index in individuals with or without antihypertensive medication use.

Data on the association of blood pressure (BP) phenotypes with office and out-of-office markers of vascular stiffness and pressure wave reflection are sparse. This study investigated office and 24-h measures of brachial BP, pulse wave velocity (PWV), and central augmentation index (AIx) across hypertension phenotypes among individuals not using BP-lowering medications [normotension (NT), white-coat hypertension (WH), masked hypertension (MH) and sustained hypertension (SH)] and those using BP-lowering medications [controlled hypertension (CH), white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH), masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH)]. We evaluated 454 untreated (age = 45 ± 15 years, 50% males) and 238 treated (age = 52 ± 15 years, 45% males) individuals who underwent office and 24-h brachial BP, PWV, and AIx measures using a Mobil-O-Graph PWA monitor. In the analysis adjusted for age and sex, WH had higher (p < 0.05) office PWV (7.53 ± 0.09 vs 6.89 ± 0.05), office AIx (27.9 ± 1.3 vs 23.8 ± 0.8), and daytime AIx (24.6 ± 0.7 vs 22.7 ± 0.4) compared with those of NT, while WUCH had higher (p < 0.05) office PWV (8.28 ± 0.11 vs 7.43 ± 0.08) and 24-h PWV (7.54 ± 0.09 vs 7.21 ± 0.07) than those of CH. MH had higher (p < 0.05) 24-h PWV (7.00 ± 0.09 vs 6.69 ± 0.04) and 24-h AIx (24.3 ± 0.9 vs 21.9 ± 0.4) than those of NT, whereas MUCH had higher (p < 0.05) 24-h PWV (7.64 ± 0.13 vs 7.21 ± 0.07) than that of CH. Lastly, SH or SUCH had significantly higher office and 24-h PWV and AIx than those of NT and CH, respectively. In conclusion, these results suggest that individuals with masked BP phenotypes are more predisposed to have adverse out-of-office vascular characteristics, while individuals with white-coat phenotypes have adverse office and out-of-office vascular characteristics compared with those of individuals with normal BP levels.