Olmesartan vs ramipril in the treatment of hypertension and associated clinical conditions in the elderly: a reanalysis of two large double-blind, randomized studies at the light of the most recent blood pressure targets recommended by guidelines.

In this paper, we present the results of a reanalysis of the data of two large randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies with a similar design, comparing the efficacy of an angiotensin-receptor blocker (olmesartan medoxomil) with that of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril), by applying two different blood pressure targets recently recommended by hypertension guidelines for all patients, irrespective of the presence of diabetes (<140/90 mmHg), and for elderly hypertensive patients (<150/90 mmHg). The efficacy of olmesartan was not negatively affected by age, sex, hypertension type, diabetes status or other concomitant clinical conditions, or cardiovascular risk factors. In most cases, olmesartan provided better blood pressure control than ramipril. Olmesartan was significantly more effective than ramipril in male patients, in younger patients (aged 65-69 years), in those with metabolic syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, preserved renal function, diastolic ± systolic hypertension, and, in general, in patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk. Interestingly, patients previously untreated or treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs showed a significantly larger response with olmesartan than with ramipril. Thus, our results confirm the good efficacy of olmesartan in elderly hypertensives even when new blood pressure targets for antihypertensive treatment are considered. Such results may be relevant for the clinical practice, providing some hint on the possible different response of elderly hypertensive patients to two different drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system, when patients are targeted according to the blood pressure levels recommended by recent hypertension guidelines.

Imaging of functional and structural alterations of large arteries after acute ischaemic atherothrombotic stroke or acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive methods allow the evaluation of structural and functional arterial abnormalities. So far, no study has focused on the comparison of vascular parameters by type of cardiovascular event. METHODS: In this pilot study, cardiovascular risk factors, carotid parameters, carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), brachial flow-mediated dilation and ambulatory blood pressure were assessed in patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or ischaemic atherothrombotic stroke (IAS). Groups were matched for age and gender. RESULTS: Prevalences of hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia and heredity, smoking and body mass index were similar in the ACS (n=50) and IAS (n=50) groups. Carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and PWV were significantly higher in the IAS vs. ACS group (769±180 vs. 701±136 µm; P=0.039 and 12.5±3.5 vs. 10.7±2.4 m/s; P=0.006). Carotid distensibility was significantly lower in the IAS vs. ACS group (16.2±3.2 vs. 18.9±7.6 10(-3)/kPa; P=0.02). These differences persisted after adjustment for blood pressure for carotid distensibility but not for PWV. The prevalences of endothelial dysfunction and carotid plaques were not significantly different in the ACS and IAS groups (86% and 74%; 80% and 78%). In a multivariable model, carotid distensibility remained associated with ACS (odds ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.38; P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Stiffness and carotid wall thickness were higher in IAS than in ACS patients. These differences may support the interest in new therapeutic targets for cardiovascular secondary prevention. NCT NO: NCT00926874.

European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Given the increasing use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in both clinical practice and hypertension research, a group of scientists, participating in the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on blood pressure monitoring and cardiovascular variability, in year 2013 published a comprehensive position paper dealing with all aspects of the technique, based on the available scientific evidence for ABPM. The present work represents an updated schematic summary of the most important aspects related to the use of ABPM in daily practice, and is aimed at providing recommendations for proper use of this technique in a clinical setting by both specialists and practicing physicians. The present article details the requirements and the methodological issues to be addressed for using ABPM in clinical practice, The clinical indications for ABPM suggested by the available studies, among which white-coat phenomena, masked hypertension, and nocturnal hypertension, are outlined in detail, and the place of home measurement of blood pressure in relation to ABPM is discussed. The role of ABPM in pharmacological, epidemiological, and clinical research is also briefly mentioned. Finally, the implementation of ABPM in practice is considered in relation to the situation of different countries with regard to the reimbursement and the availability of ABPM in primary care practices, hospital clinics, and pharmacies.

Olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: review of data from two published randomized, double-blind studies.

Hypertension is a frequent condition among individuals over 65 years of age worldwide and is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Effective drug treatment of elderly hypertensives is usually associated with a marked reduction in CV morbidity and mortality. Among the different classes of antihypertensive agents, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE-inhibitors are supposed to provide the best efficacy in lowering blood pressure (BP) and protecting target organ damage while featuring a good tolerability profile. However, up to date, few randomized clinical studies have directly compared the activity and safety of ARBs and ACE-inhibitors in elderly hypertensive patients. Aim of this review of published and unpublished pooled data from two recent randomized, double-blind, controlled trials, is to offer a comprehensive head-to-head comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy of the ARB olmesartan medoxomil vs. the ACE-inhibitor ramipril in a large study population including more than 1,400 hypertensive subjects aged 65-89 years with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. The efficacy of the two drugs was separately evaluated in subgroups of patients classified according to the presence of metabolic syndrome, reduced renal function, CV risk level, gender, class of age, type of arterial hypertension and previous antihypertensive treatments. Olmesartan showed a greater efficacy than ramipril both in terms of clinic BP reduction and rate normalization. Olmesartan appeared significantly superior to ramipril in providing a more homogeneous and long-lasting 24-h BP control and maintaining an effective antihypertensive action in the last 6-h period from drug intake. In subgroups of patients with additional clinical conditions, olmesartan gave comparable, and in some cases greater, BP responses than those achieved with the ACE-inhibitor. The incidence of adverse events was similar for both drugs. Olmesartan may thus represent an effective alternative to ACE-inhibitors among first-line drug treatments for hypertension in older people.

European Society of Hypertension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is being used increasingly in both clinical practice and hypertension research. Although there are many guidelines that emphasize the indications for ABPM, there is no comprehensive guideline dealing with all aspects of the technique. It was agreed at a consensus meeting on ABPM in Milan in 2011 that the 34 attendees should prepare a comprehensive position paper on the scientific evidence for ABPM.This position paper considers the historical background, the advantages and limitations of ABPM, the threshold levels for practice, and the cost-effectiveness of the technique. It examines the need for selecting an appropriate device, the accuracy of devices, the additional information and indices that ABPM devices may provide, and the software requirements.At a practical level, the paper details the requirements for using ABPM in clinical practice, editing considerations, the number of measurements required, and the circumstances, such as obesity and arrhythmias, when particular care needs to be taken when using ABPM.The clinical indications for ABPM, among which white-coat phenomena, masked hypertension, and nocturnal hypertension appear to be prominent, are outlined in detail along with special considerations that apply in certain clinical circumstances, such as childhood, the elderly and pregnancy, and in cardiovascular illness, examples being stroke and chronic renal disease, and the place of home measurement of blood pressure in relation to ABPM is appraised.The role of ABPM in research circumstances, such as pharmacological trials and in the prediction of outcome in epidemiological studies is examined and finally the implementation of ABPM in practice is considered in relation to the issue of reimbursement in different countries, the provision of the technique by primary care practices, hospital clinics and pharmacies, and the growing role of registries of ABPM in many countries.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril in elderly mild to moderate essential hypertensive patients with or without metabolic syndrome: a pooled post hoc analysis of two comparative trials.

BACKGROUND: Two recent identically designed trials (one Italian and one European multinational) have compared the head-to-head efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil and the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril, in elderly patients with essential hypertension. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with hypertension, with or without metabolic syndrome, by performing a pooled analysis of data from the two head-to-head trials. METHODS: After a 2-week, placebo wash-out, 1,453 treated or untreated elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years [with sitting office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90-109 mmHg and/or sitting office systolic BP (SBP) 140-179 mmHg] were randomized to 12-weeks of double-blind treatment with olmesartan 10 mg or ramipril 2.5 mg once daily. Treatment could be up-titrated to 20 and 40 mg for olmesartan, and 5 and 10 mg for ramipril, after the first 2 and 6 weeks, respectively, in patients with inadequately controlled BP (BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics and ≥ 130/80 mmHg for diabetics). Office BP was measured at randomization and after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment. 24-h ambulatory BP recordings were obtained at randomization and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 1,426 patients in the intent-to-treat analysis, 735 (51.5 %) had metabolic syndrome (olmesartan, n = 372; ramipril, n = 363). After 12 weeks of treatment, baseline-adjusted office BP reductions were greater (p < 0.05) with olmesartan (SBP 17.0 mmHg; 95% CI 18.4, 15.6; DBP 9.6 mmHg; 95% CI 10.4, 8.8) than with ramipril (SBP 14.7 mmHg; 95% CI 16.1, 13.2; DBP 8.4 mmHg; 95% CI 9.2, 7.6) in patients with metabolic syndrome. In these patients, BP normalization rates were also greater with olmesartan than with ramipril (46.0 vs. 35.8%, p < 0.01). Similarly, in patients without metabolic syndrome, the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan was also significantly (p < 0.05) better than that of ramipril. In the subgroup of patients with valid ambulatory BP (ABP) recordings and metabolic syndrome (olmesartan, n = 182; ramipril, n = 170), the reduction in mean 24-h ABP was greater with olmesartan (SBP 10.2 mmHg; 95% CI 11.8, 8.6; DBP 6.6 mmHg; 95% CI 7.5, 5.6) than with ramipril (SBP 8.5 mmHg; 95% CI 10.2, 6.9; DBP 4.7 mmHg; 95% CI 5.7, 3.7), with a statistically significant (p < 0.01) difference for the DBP comparison. The proportion of patients experiencing drug-related adverse events was comparable in patients with (olmesartan 2.4 % vs. ramipril 2.8 %) and without (3.5 vs. 3.7 %) metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan provides more effective BP control than ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients with and without metabolic syndrome.

Diet and blood pressure in 18-74-year-old adults: the French Nutrition and Health Survey (ENNS, 2006-2007).

OBJECTIVE: Dietary recommendations to reduce blood pressure (BP) have been widely disseminated. We investigated associations between dietary intake and BP in a national sample of adults living in France. METHODS: The survey included 1968 18-74-year-old participants in the French Nutrition and Health Survey (Etude Nationale Nutrition Santé), a cross-sectional national multistage sampling study. Dietary intake and SBP and DBP were assessed using three 24-h recalls and three measurements, respectively. Mean dietary intake was compared across BP categories: previously diagnosed hypertensive and among undiagnosed optimal (SBP <120  mmHg and DBP <80  mmHg), intermediate and high (SBP ≥140  mmHg and/or DBP ≥90  mmHg) BP participants. After exclusion of previously diagnosed hypertensive participants, linear regressions were also carried out between dietary intake and SBP and DBP. RESULTS: Eating habits of previously diagnosed hypertensive participants were not different from those of undiagnosed high BP participants, except higher milk consumption (P = 0.03) and lower seafood and alcohol intake (P < 0.03 and P = 0.002, respectively) in previously diagnosed hypertensive. After exclusion of them, dairy products (milk especially), fruit and vegetables, fiber and whole-grain food consumption were inversely and linearly associated with SBP (P < 0.04), whereas alcohol intake was positively associated with SBP (P < 10) and DBP (P = 0.005). Modification effect of sex was observed for saturated fatty acids intake (positive association with DPB in women) and calcium (negative association with SBP in men). CONCLUSION: Adherence to nutritional recommendations still needs to be improved in hypertensive adults even if they are aware of their condition. In the rest of the population, proper habits regarding milk, fruit and vegetables, fiber and alcohol should decrease the risk of hypertension onset.

Twenty-four hour and early morning blood pressure control of olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: pooled individual data analysis of two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in elderly hypertensive patients by pooled data analysis of two studies with identical designs (one Italian, one European). METHODS: After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1453 elderly hypertensive patients (65-89 years; sitting office DBP 90-109 mmHg and/or sitting office SBP 140-179 mmHg) were randomized to a 12-week double-blind treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 10 mg or ramipril 2.5 mg once-daily, up-titrated (20 and 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil; 5 and 10 mg ramipril) after 2 and 6 weeks in patients without normalized office BP. 24-h ABP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 715 patients with valid baseline and end-of-treatment recordings baseline-adjusted 24-h SBP and DBP reductions were greater with olmesartan medoxomil (n = 356) than with ramipril (n = 359) [between-treatment differences and 95% confidence interval (CI), SBP: 2.2 (3.8, 0.6), P = 0.006; DBP: 1.3 (2.2, 0.3), P = 0.009]. Olmesartan medoxomil showed larger BP reductions in the last 6 h from the dosing interval and higher smoothness indices than ramipril. Olmesartan medoxomil reduced the SBP morning rise [-2.8 (-4.9, -0.8) mmHg], whereas ramipril did not [+1.5 (-0.6, +3.6) mmHg; P = 0.004 between-treatments]. Five hundred and eighty-two patients with sustained hypertension (office and 24-h ambulatory hypertension) showed the largest antihypertensive effect, with between-treatment differences still in favor of olmesartan medoxomil [SBP: 2.1 (3.9, 0.4), P = 0.019; DBP: 1.2 (2.3, 0.1), P = 0.032]. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil provides a more effective and sustained 24-h BP control than ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients, particularly in the hours farthest from last intake.

European Society of Hypertension scientific newsletter: hypertension and aortic diseases.

Hypertension, one of the major cardiovascular risk factors, promotes the formation of atheromatous lesions in the large arteries, including the aorta. It also favors aortic aneurysm and acute aortic syndrome such as aortic dissection or hematoma. In patients with aortic disease, beta-blockers and/or renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors should be preferentially used to decrease blood pressure and improve arterial wall properties.

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertension grouped according to renal function status : a retrospective analysis.

AIM: The objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil and the ACE inhibitor ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, grouped according to renal function. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre studies. After a 2-week placebo wash-out period, 1453 mild to moderate hypertensive subjects were randomized to a 12-week treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 10 mg/day or ramipril 2.5 mg/day. After 2 and 6 weeks, doses were increased up to a maximum of 40 mg/day (olmesartan medoxomil) and 10 mg/day (ramipril) in non-normalized subjects (office systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] ≥90 mmHg in non-diabetic subjects and office SBP ≥ 130 mmHg or DBP ≥80 mm Hg in diabetic patients). Office blood pressure (BP) was measured at 0, 2, 6 and 12 weeks, 24-hour ambulatory BP at 0 and 12 weeks. 284 patients treated with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/day at the end of the double-blind period entered a 36-week, open-label follow-up. Renal function (Cockroft-Gault equation) was evaluated as normal or increased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) [≥90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)], mild eGFR reduction (60-90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and moderate or severe eGFR reduction (<60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). RESULTS: 181 (12.7%) subjects had normal or increased eGFR, 840 (58.9%) mild eGFR reduction, and 405 (28.4%) moderate or severe eGFR reduction. Baseline-adjusted office BP reductions were superior with olmesartan medoxomil than with ramipril in normal or increased (olmesartan medoxomil - ramipril difference SBP: 5.0 mmHg [95% CI 9.1, 0.9], p = 0.018; DBP: 2.7 mmHg [4.8, 0.6], p = 0.011) and mildly reduced eGFR patients (SBP: 1.6 mmHg [3.5, 0.2], p = 0.080; DBP: 1.2 mmHg [2.3, 0.2], p = 0.022). In the group with moderately or severely reduced eGFR the two treatments were comparable (SBP: 1.9 mmHg [4.6, 0.9], p = 0.185; DBP: 0.8 mmHg [2.3, +0.7]; p = 0.296). At 12 weeks, the rate of normalized patients was 46.1 % with olmesartan medoxomil versus 23.9% with ramipril (p = 0.002) in the normal, and 49.9% versus 42.7% (p = 0.037) in the mild eGFR reduction group. No significant differences in normalization rate were observed in the moderately or severely reduced eGFR group (olmesartan medoxomil 49.5% vs ramipril 46.3%, p = 0.519). eGFR did not show any significant change during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil provides a more effective BP control, similar if not superior to that of ramipril, independently from the patient's renal function status.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate systolic and diastolic essential hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (O) and ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension. METHODS: After a 2-week placebo washout, 351 elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90-109 mmHg and office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140-179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks, doses could be doubled in non-normalized (blood pressure <140/90 mmHg for non-diabetic and <130/80 mmHg for diabetic) subjects, up to 40 mg for O and 10 mg for R. Office blood pressures were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment; 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: At week 12, in the intention-to-treat population (170 patients O and 175 R) the rate of normalized subjects was significantly larger in the O group (38.8% vs 26.3% R; p = 0.013). Baseline-adjusted mean sitting office blood pressure reduction at final visit was not significantly greater under O [SBP: 16.6 (95% confidence interval 14.0/19.2) mmHg vs 13.0 (10.4/15.6) mmHg R, p = 0.206; DBP: 11.8 (10.3/13.3) mmHg vs 10.5 (9.0/12.0) mmHg, p = 0.351]. In the subgroup of patients with valid ABP recordings (38 O and 47 R), the reduction in 24-h average blood pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) larger with O [SBP: 8.9 (9.8/8.1) and DBP: 5.7 (6.3/5.1) mmHg] than with R [6.7 (7.9/5.6) and 4.4 (5.1/3.7) mmHg]. The superiority of O was particularly evident in the last 4 h from the dosing interval. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (4.0% O vs 4.5% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side-effect (8 O vs 7 R). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension, O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated blood pressure control, with significantly better blood pressure normalization than R and represents a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.

Short sleep duration is associated with a blood pressure nondipping pattern in type 1 diabetes: the DIAPASOM study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether nocturnal blood pressure dipping status in type 1 diabetes is correlated with specific sleep characteristics and differences in nocturnal glycemic profiles. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty type 1 diabetic adult patients underwent sleep studies with simultaneous 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and continuous nocturnal glucose monitoring. RESULTS: Altogether, 55% of patients exhibited blunted blood pressure dipping. They did not differ from the dipper group in age, BMI, or systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. Total sleep period (TSP) was higher in the dipper group (497 +/- 30 vs. 407 +/- 44 min for dippers and nondippers, respectively, P < 0.001). TSP was correlated with SBP and DBP day-night differences (r = 0.44 and 0.49, respectively). Periods of nocturnal hypoglycemia (i.e., % of TSP with glycemia <70 mg/dl) were longer in the dipper group (8.1 +/- 10.7 vs. 0.1 +/- 0.4% for dippers and nondippers, respectively, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Dipping status in type 1 diabetes was associated with longer sleep duration and with hypoglycemia unawareness.

Olmesartan medoxomil in elderly patients with essential or isolated systolic hypertension : efficacy and safety data from clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The appearance and progression of essential hypertension is associated with increasing age. Older patients also frequently have an abnormally elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) [> or =140 mmHg] without an elevated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [< or =90 mmHg], a phenomenon known as isolated systolic hypertension. Thus, management of hypertension in elderly patients requires agents that can effectively treat isolated systolic hypertension as well as essential hypertension. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) olmesartan medoxomil in elderly patients with either essential hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension. METHODS: Efficacy data were obtained from two studies and safety data from an Integrated Summary of Safety. The efficacy of individually optimized doses of olmesartan medoxomil 20 or 40 mg/day, with or without hydrochlorothiazide, in elderly patients (> or =65 years) was assessed in two separate randomized, double-blind studies. One study assessed DBP changes in 251 patients with essential hypertension (mean seated DBP [seDBP] 100-114 mmHg and mean seated SBP [seSBP] >150 mmHg); the other study evaluated SBP changes in 256 patients with isolated systolic hypertension (mean seSBP >160 mmHg and mean seDBP <90 mmHg). Safety and tolerability were assessed in each study and in an Integrated Summary of Safety, which comprised data from 1646 hypertensive patients aged > or =65 years. RESULTS: In patients with essential hypertension, 12 weeks of treatment reduced mean seDBP (primary efficacy parameter) by 17.9 mmHg; mean seSBP was also significantly reduced. At study end (week 52), the proportion of diastolic responders (seDBP < or =90 mmHg) was 93%. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension, mean seSBP was reduced by 30.0 mmHg at week 12 (primary efficacy parameter); mean seDBP was only slightly reduced. At study end (week 24), the proportion of systolic responders (seSBP < or =135 mmHg) was 62.5%. Reductions in blood pressure (BP) were maintained throughout treatment in both patient populations. In each study, doubling the olmesartan medoxomil dose from 20 to 40 mg/day or adding hydrochlorothiazide delivered additional BP-lowering efficacy without any tolerability concerns, and the Integrated Summary of Safety also showed that olmesartan medoxomil with or without hydrochlorothiazide was well tolerated. Efficacy and safety results were similar in elderly (65-74 years) and very elderly (> or =75 years) patients. CONCLUSION: Olmesartan medoxomil provides effective and well tolerated control of hypertension in elderly patients with either essential hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension.

EVAluation of the prognostic value of BARoreflex sensitivity in hypertensive patients: the EVABAR study.

AIMS: The prognostic value of baroreflex sensitivity in hypertensive patients has not much been studied. METHOD: A cohort of 451 hypertensive patients without cardiovascular history was studied for an average of 6.2 +/- 2.8 years follow-up. Each patient had a baroreflex sensitivity measurement by the sequence method, which is represented by the slope of up-sequences (systolic blood pressure+/pulse interval+) and down-sequences (systolic blood pressure-/pulse interval-) of spontaneous fluctuations in systolic blood pressure and pulse interval. RESULTS: During the follow-up, there were 20 deaths from any cause and 30 patients presented a major adverse cardiovascular event. Deaths and major adverse cardiovascular events were associated with a reduction in baroreflex sensitivity (systolic blood pressure+/pulse interval+ and systolic blood pressure-/pulse interval-). In multivariate analysis, the reduction in baroreflex sensitivity systolic blood pressure+/pulse interval+ was associated with an increased risk of deaths from any cause (Odds ratio 1.23; 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.67, P = 0.04). A baroreflex sensitivity systolic blood pressure+/pulse interval+ under 4.5 ms/mmHg was associated with a 2.5-increased relative risk of major adverse cardiovascular event (95% confidence interval 1.11-5.93, P = 0.03). However, multivariate analysis showed that baroreflex sensitivity systolic blood pressure-/pulse interval- was not associated either with death or major adverse cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction in baroreflex sensitivity marked by a reduction in vagal reflexes is an independent marker of the risk of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients.

Study of nycthemeral variations in blood pressure in patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe and analyse the nycthemeral variations in blood pressure (BP) by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) over 24 h in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: The study population included 50 stable HF patients hospitalized in a cardiology department for acute pulmonary oedema. Parameters studied were: New York Heart Association class, clinical resting BP and heart rate in sitting and then standing positions, ABPM parameters, distance covered during a 6-min walking test, echographic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), natremia, kaliemia, creatininemia, plasma haemoglobin and N-terminal fragment of brain-type natriuretic peptide levels. RESULTS: Clinical hypertension was noted in 20% of patients (10/50) and orthostatic hypotension in 16% (8/50). Nine of 50 patients (18%) were hypertensive during the day and 21 (42%) at night. Thirty-nine of the 50 patients (78%) are nondippers. Nondipper patients are more prevalent when the HF has been present for more than 24 months (95 vs. 67%, P=0.04). This prevalence does not differ depending on New York Heart Association class or LVEF. Furthermore, there exists: (i) a significant positive relationship (R=0.46, P=0.02) between the diastolic BP (DBP) over 24 h and the distance covered during the walking test; (ii) a significant negative relationship between the day-night differences (in mmHg) of the systolic BP (SBP) (R=-0.46, P=0.01) and DBP (R=-0.33, P=0.03) and the duration of HF, between the day-night difference of the DBP and the LVEF (R=-0.34, P=0.02) and (iii) between the day-night differences of the SBP (R=-0.48, P=0.001) and the DBP (R=-0.32, P=0.03) and natremia. The day-night difference of the SBP has a positive correlation with plasma haemoglobin level (R=0.32, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: This study confirms the feasibility of carrying out ABPM with an adapted device in HF patients with atrial fibrillation. ABPM allows diagnosis to be more precise than the clinical measuring of BP abnormalities, which have a pejorative prognosis (e.g. hypertension, hypotension, nondipper status).

[Masked hypertension: myth or reality?]. / Hypertension artérielle masquée: mythe ou réalité.

Masked hypertension is also referred as reverse white coat hypertension. Masked hypertension is diagnosed in subjects who have normal clinic blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mmHg and elevated ambulatory BP or home BP, with daytime systolic BP> or = 135 mmHg or daytime diastolic BP > or = 85 mmHg. Its prevalence varies between 10 to at least 47% and differs substantially according to the reference population and the specific criteria.Subjects with masked hypertension have been shown to have more extensive target organ damage, specifically, a higher prevalence of carotid atherosclerosis and of left ventricular cardiac hypertrophy. Longitudinal studies of patients with masked hypertension show higher levels of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than in reference populations. These studies show that ambulatory or home BP measurements predict risk much better than the usual clinical measurements and that those who are found to be hypertensive by ambulatory or home measurements have greater risks than those who are not. Who should be tested for masked hypertension? Our reference study shows that 3 characteristics are most likely to predict masked hypertension: male sex, age over 60 years, and office systolic BP of more than 130 mmHg. Masked hypertension is indeed a reality. Individual patients should be tested and treated, based on the physician's clinical judgment.

Masked hypertension in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) detects subjects with normal clinic but high ambulatory 24-h BP, that is, masked hypertension. METHODS: One hundred and thirty newly diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) patients, free of recognized cardiovascular disease were included (111 men, age = 48 +/- 1 years, BMI = 27.6 +/- 0.4 kg/m, respiratory disturbance index (RDI = 42 +/- 2/h). Clinic BP, 24-h ABPM, baroreflex sensitivity (BRS), echocardiography and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (31.5%) were normotensive, 39 (30.0%) exhibited masked hypertension, four (3.1%) white-coat hypertension and 46 (35.4%) hypertension. Significant differences were found between normotensive, masked hypertensive and hypertensive patients in terms of BRS (10.5 +/- 0.8, 8.0 +/- 0.6 and 7.4 +/- 0.4 ms/mmHg, respectively, P < 0.001), carotid IMT (624 +/- 17, 650 +/- 20 and 705 +/- 23 microm, respectively, P = 0.04) and left ventricular mass index (37 +/- 1, 40 +/- 2 and 43 +/- 1 g/height2.7, respectively, P = 0.003). A clinic systolic BP more than 125 and a diastolic BP more than 83 mmHg led to a relative risk (RR) of 2.7 and a 90% positive predictive value for having masked hypertension. CONCLUSION: Masked hypertension is frequently underestimated in OSAS and is nearly always present when clinic BP is above 125/83 mmHg.