Prediction of treatment-induced changes in target-organ damage using changes in clinic, home and ambulatory blood pressure.

Cross-sectional studies have shown that ambulatory and home blood pressure (ABP and HBP, respectively) measurements are more closely associated with preclinical organ damage than are office measurements. This study investigated the association between treatment-induced changes in BP assessed by the three methods and the corresponding changes in organ damage. Untreated hypertensives were evaluated with office, ABP and HBP measurements and indices of organ damage (echocardiographic left-ventricular mass index (LVMI), pulse wave velocity (PWV), albuminuria) before and after 12 months of treatment. A total of 116 subjects completed the study (mean age 50.7±10.5 years, 69 men (59%), mean follow-up 13.4±1.4 months). The treatment-induced change in the LVMI was correlated with changes in BP and pulse pressure (PP) assessed by all methods. The change in PWV was correlated with changes in home systolic and ABP and PP and with the change in home diastolic BP. Albuminuria showed no correlations. In linear regression models, changes in home BP and PP had the strongest predictive ability for the change in the LVMI, whereas the change in ABP was the strongest predictor of the change in PWV. The change in office BP had no predictive value. HBP and ABP measurements appear to be superior to office BP measurements and should be considered complementary rather than interchangeable methods for monitoring the effects of antihypertensive treatment on target-organ damage.

Home blood pressure monitoring alone vs. combined clinic and ambulatory measurements in following treatment-induced changes in blood pressure and organ damage.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement using home BP (HBP) or ambulatory BP (ABP) monitoring is often necessary for the accurate evaluation of hypertension. These methods have several similarities but also have major differences. Therefore, they are regarded as complementary, and there is uncertainty on how they should be applied in clinical practice. This study compared hypertension management based on clinic and ABP measurements or on HBP measurements alone. METHODS: Untreated subjects with elevated BP were randomized to treatment initiation and titration based on clinic and ABP measurements or on HBP measurements alone. Target organ damage was assessed at baseline and after 1 year of treatment with echocardiographic left ventricular mass index (primary endpoint), pulse wave velocity, and urinary albumin excretion. RESULTS: A total of 145 subjects were randomized, and 116 completed the study (mean age = 50.7±10.5 years; 69 men (59%); mean follow-up = 13.4±1.4 months). There was no difference between the 2 arms in treatment-induced change in left ventricular mass index (mean difference = 0.50±1.11 g/m2; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.70 to 2.70). Moreover, there was no difference between the 2 arms in treatment-induced changes in pulse wave velocity (mean difference = -0.16±0.42 m/s; 95% CI = -0.99 to 0.66), urinary albumin excretion (mean difference = -0.85±4.28 mg/dl; 95% CI = -9.37 to 7.66), HBP and ABP levels, and hypertension control rates. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that HBP monitoring alone is as reliable as combined clinic and ABP measurements in monitoring the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment on BP and preclinical target organ damage.

Home versus ambulatory and office blood pressure in predicting target organ damage in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Studies have shown that ambulatory blood pressure (BP) is more closely related to preclinical target organ damage than office measurements. A review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the association of home BP measurements with target organ damage was performed. METHODS: A PubMed and Cochrane Library search (1950-2011) revealed 23 studies reporting comparative data of home BP versus ambulatory and/or office measurements in terms of their association with several indices of target organ damage. Correlation coefficients were pooled by random-effects model meta-analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (n = 2485) assessing echocardiographic left ventricular mass index (LVMI) showed similar correlations with home (coefficients r = 0.46/0.28, systolic/diastolic) as with ambulatory BP (0.37/0.26, P = NS for difference versus home BP), and superior to office measurements (r = 0.23/0.19, P < 0.001/0.009 for difference versus home BP). Four methodologically heterogeneous studies assessing the glomerular filtration rate (n = 609) could not be pooled or lead to a concrete result. Four studies assessing carotid intima-media thickness (n = 1222), three assessing pulse wave velocity (n = 720) and two assessing urinary protein excretion (n = 156) showed no difference in pooled correlation coefficients with home versus office BP measurements. With all the measurement methods SBP was more closely associated with target organ damage than DBP. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that home BP is as good as ambulatory monitoring and superior to office measurements in regard to their association with preclinical organ damage assessed by echocardiographic LVMI. More research is required to evaluate the relationship of home BP with other indices of target organ damage.