Seasonal variation in meteorological parameters and office, ambulatory and home blood pressure: predicting factors and clinical implications.

This study investigated the relationship between seasonal variations in blood pressure (BP) and the corresponding changes in meteorological parameters and weather-induced patients' discomfort. Hypertensives on stable treatment were assessed in winter-1, summer and winter-2 with clinic (CBP), home (HBP) and 24-hour ambulatory BP (ABP). Discomfort indices derived from temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure that reflected subjects' discomfort were evaluated. Symptomatic orthostatic hypotension was assessed with a questionnaire. Sixty subjects (mean age 65.1±8.8 [s.d.], 39 men) were analyzed. CBP, HBP and daytime ABP were lower in summer than in winter (P<0.01). Nighttime ABP was unchanged, which resulted in a 55% higher proportion of non-dippers (P<0.001). All the discomfort indices that reflected weather-induced subjects' discomfort were higher in summer (P<0.05) and systolic daytime ABP was <110 mm Hg in 15 subjects (25%). Seasonal changes in temperature and the discomfort indices were correlated with BP changes (P<0.05). Multivariate analyses revealed that winter BP levels, seasonal differences in temperature, female gender and the use of diuretics predicted the summer BP decline. In conclusion, all aspects of the BP profile, except nighttime ABP, are reduced in summer, resulting in an increased prevalence of non-dippers in summer with unknown consequences. Seasonal BP changes are influenced by changes in meteorological parameters, anthropometric and treatment characteristics. Trials are urgently needed to evaluate the clinical relevance of excessive BP decline in summer and management guidelines for practicing physicians should be developed.

Changing relationship among clinic, home, and ambulatory blood pressure with increasing age.

Studies in adults have shown similar levels of home (HBP) and daytime ambulatory blood pressure (dABP), which are lower than clinic blood pressure (CBP) measurements. This study investigated the impact of age on these differences. A total of 642 untreated children, adolescents, and adults referred to a hypertension clinic were evaluated with CBP, HBP, and dABP measurements within 4 weeks (mean age 38.6 ± 19.4 years; range 5-78 years; 61.1% males). In children, dABP was higher than both CBP and HBP. These differences were progressively eliminated with increasing age, and after the age of 30 years, dABP was similar to HBP, and both were lower than CBP. In subjects aged ≥60 years, dABP appeared to be lower than HBP. Age and hypertension appeared to be the main independent predictors of the differences among the three methods.These data suggest that the relationship between office and out-of-office blood pressure measurements is not the same across all age groups and should be taken into account in the evaluation of subjects with elevated blood pressure in clinical practice.

Treatment-induced changes in ambulatory arterial stiffness index: one-year prospective study and meta-analysis of evidence.

The ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) has been introduced as an index of arterial function, predicting cardiovascular events. However, treatment-induced changes in AASI are rather equivocal. This study aims to: (i) present the results of treatment-induced changes in AASI in untreated subjects with elevated blood pressure (BP), subjected to antihypertensive treatment for 1 year and (ii) perform a meta-analysis of studies reporting on treatment-induced change in AASI. A total of 104 subjects (mean age 51.4±10.3 years, 62% males, mean follow-up: 13.6±2.4 months) were analyzed. Despite significant reductions in 24-h ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP, pulse pressure and pulse wave velocity (mean change: -15.9±12/-10.4±7.6 mm Hg, -5.4±6.8 mm Hg, -0.7±1.9 m s(-1), respectively, all P<0.05), there was no significant change (Follow up-Baseline) in AASI values (mean change: 0.01±0.17, P=not significant). The treatment-induced change in AASI was correlated with baseline AASI (r=-0.61), baseline 24-h pulse pressure (-0.26), treatment-induced change in 24-h pulse pressure (0.26) and in systolic/diastolic nocturnal dipping (-0.25/-0.40, respectively). Meta-analysis of eight trials (n=990) revealed a marginal decrease in AASI with antihypertensive treatment (pooled change: -0.018 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.033,-0.003)). When the analysis was restricted to data with renin-angiotensin system blockers (n=755, 76% of total), the results did not significantly change (pooled change -0.028 (95% CI -0.048, -0.007)). In conclusion, although AASI is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events, its response to antihypertensive treatment is only marginal and clinically uncertain, which may render its use as a therapeutic target in clinical practice questionable.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of home vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in untreated and treated hypertension.

Several studies with relatively small size and different design and end points have investigated the diagnostic ability of home blood pressure (HBP). This study investigated the usefulness of HBP compared with ambulatory monitoring (ABP) in diagnosing sustained hypertension, white coat phenomenon (WCP) and masked hypertension (MH) in a large sample of untreated and treated subjects using a blood pressure (BP) measurement protocol according to the current guidelines. A total of 613 subjects attending a hypertension clinic (mean age 53±12.4 (s.d.) years, men 57%, untreated 59%) had measurements of clinic BP (three visits, triplicate measurements per visit), HBP (6 days, duplicate morning and evening measurements) and awake ABP (20-min intervals) within 6 weeks. Sustained hypertension was diagnosed in 50% of the participants by ABP and HBP (agreement 89%, κ=0.79), WCP in 14 and 15%, respectively (agreement 89%, κ=0.56) and MH in 16% and 15% (agreement 88%, κ=0.52). Only 4% of the subjects (27/613) showed clinically significant diagnostic disagreement with BP deviation >5 mm Hg above the diagnostic threshold (for HBP or ABP). By taking ABP as reference, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of HBP in detecting sustained hypertension were 90, 89, 89 and 90%, respectively, WCP 61, 94, 64 and 94% and MH 60, 93, 60 and 93%. Similar diagnostic agreement was found in untreated and treated subjects. HBP appears to be a reliable alternative to ABP in the diagnosis of hypertension and the detection of WCP and MH in both untreated and treated subjects.

Tracking of blood pressure from childhood to adolescence in a Greek cohort.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported tracking of blood pressure (BP) from childhood to adulthood but with inconsistent results mainly due to methodological and ethnic differences. We aimed to examine BP tracking during a 7-year period in a Greek cohort. METHODS: This is a longitudinal school-based study conducted during 1990-96 in Athens, Greece. Children underwent BP and anthropometric measurements on two to three visits annually (averaged to annual values) for 7 years. RESULTS: A total of 166 children with complete yearly follow-up data for the examined period were included (mean baseline age 9 ± 1.7 years, range: 5-12 years, 89 boys). At baseline, the prevalence of pre- and hypertension was 22.9 and 24.1% respectively and at the end of the follow-up 24.1% (P = NS vs. baseline) and 13.3% (P = 0.02 vs. baseline) respectively. Systolic/diastolic BP tracking correlation coefficients between 1990 and 1996 were 0.38 (P < 0.001)/0.20 (P = 0.06) for boys and 0.30 (P = 0.007)/0.22 (P = 0.06) for girls. Among children with baseline BP ≥90th centile (systolic and/or diastolic), 44% remained in the same BP range after 7 years. In stepwise multiple regression analysis, baseline systolic BP, male gender, baseline body mass index (BMI) and change in BMI from baseline to the end of the follow-up (ΔBMI) were significant predictors of systolic BP levels at the end of the follow-up. Baseline diastolic BP, baseline BMI and ΔBMI were significant predictors of diastolic BP at the end of the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the risk of developing high BP during adolescence can be predicted by BP and BMI at childhood.

Ambulatory arterial stiffness index, pulse pressure and pulse wave velocity in children and adolescents.

Arterial stiffness, assessed by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) or indirectly by pulse pressure (PP) or ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI), is an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease in adults. However, in children limited evidence is available. This study investigated the usefulness of AASI and PP as indices of arterial stiffness in children and adolescents, by taking PWV as the reference method. Eighty-two children and adolescents (mean age 13.1±2.9 years) had 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring, PWV measurement and echocardiography. Compared with normotensives, subjects with hypertension (n=16) had higher 24-h ABP, 24-h PP and PWV, but not AASI. 24-h, PP was strongly correlated with age, weight, height, 24-h systolic ABP, PWV, left ventricular mass (LVM), LVM index, stroke volume and inversely with 24-h heart rate. AASI was also correlated with weight, height, systolic ABP and LVM, yet these associations were weaker than those of PP, and no significant correlations were found with PWV or LVM index. Moreover, closer agreement of PWV was observed with 24-h PP (71%, kappa 0.21) than with 24-h AASI (61%, kappa -0.06) in detecting subjects at the top quartile of the respective distributions. In children and adolescents, 24-h PP compared with AASI appears to be more closely associated with: (i) arterial stiffness assessed by PWV; (ii) target organ damage assessed by LVM index; and (iii) the presence of essential hypertension. These data suggest that the usefulness of AASI as an index of arterial stiffness in the pediatric population is questionable.

Arterial stiffness index based on home (HASI) vs. ambulatory (AASI) blood pressure measurements.

Ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) is a novel index derived from the linear relationship between 24-h ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) measurements. This study investigated whether 'home arterial stiffness index' (HASI) based on self-home BP measurements is similar to AASI. A total of 483 hypertensive subjects underwent 24-h ambulatory and 6-day home BP monitoring. AASI and HASI were defined as one minus the respective regression slope of diastolic on systolic BP. Mean HASI (0.66+/-0.17) was higher than 24-h (0.33+/-0.15) daytime (0.50+/-0.18) and nighttime AASI (0.37+/-0.19, P<0.001 for all comparisons vs. HASI) and was weakly correlated with 24-h (r=0.14, P<0.01) daytime (r=0.14, P<0.01) and nighttime AASI (r=0.09, P=0.05). Compared to 24-h AASI, HASI was less closely associated with age (r=0.46 and 0.10 respectively, P<0.001 for difference), systolic home BP (r=0.30 and 0.09, P<0.001) and pulse pressure (r=0.52 and 0.20, P<0.001), as well as with 24-h ambulatory systolic BP (r=0.21 and 0.05, P<0.05) and pulse pressure (r=0.56 and 0.25, P<0.001). No satisfactory agreement was observed between HASI and 24-h (agreement 63%, kappa 0.02) daytime (agreement 65%, kappa 0.1) or nighttime AASI (agreement 63%, kappa 0.03) in detecting subjects at the top quartile of the respective distributions. HASI appears to be similar but also has important differences from AASI and is less closely associated with markers of arterial stiffness. These data do not support the view that home BP measurements can replace ambulatory monitoring in the assessment of the arterial stiffness index.

Morning hypertension assessed by home or ambulatory monitoring: different aspects of the same phenomenon?

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing interest in morning hypertension assessed using out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement methods. This study compared morning BP taken by home (mHBP) versus morning ambulatory BP (mABP) monitoring. METHODS: A total of 588 hypertensives were included [mean age 53 +/- 12.4 (SD) years, 57% men, 59% untreated]. Average mHBP (6 days, duplicate morning measurements) was compared with mABP (first 1, 2 or 3 h after arising, readings at 20-min intervals). Morning 'hypertensives' were defined as individuals with mHBP or mABP at least 135/85 mmHg and morning 'reactors' as those with a difference between mHBP and average home BP or mABP and average awake ambulatory BP at the upper quartile of the respective distribution. RESULTS: Average mABP (2 h) was the closest to mHBP with mean difference 0.4 +/- 14.0/1.2 +/- 8.6 mmHg, 95% confidence intervals -0.8, 1.5/0.5, 1.9, P NS < 0.01, for systolic/diastolic and was strongly correlated with mABP (r = 0.60/0.68, P < 0.001). There was moderate agreement between mHBP and mABP in detecting morning 'hypertensives' (agreement 72%, kappa 0.44, for systolic BP and 75%, kappa 0.51, for diastolic) and slight agreement in detecting morning 'reactors' (agreement 68%, kappa 0.15, for systolic BP and 67%, kappa 0.13, for diastolic). These findings did not change when mABP of 1 or 3 h after arising were used or when untreated and treated individuals were analyzed separately. CONCLUSION: Despite their methodological differences, there seems to be considerable similarity between mHBP and mABP. Thus, both home and ambulatory BP monitoring appear to be interchangeable methods for the assessment of morning hypertension.

Ambulatory arterial stiffness index: reproducibility of different definitions.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) has been proposed as a marker of arterial stiffness, which predicts cardiovascular mortality. This study compared the reproducibility of 24-h, daytime, night time, and symmetrical AASI. METHODS: A total of 126 untreated hypertensives (mean age 48.2 +/- 10.7 (s.d.) years, 70 men) underwent 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring twice 2-4 weeks apart. The reproducibility of AASI was assessed using the following criteria: (i) repeatability coefficient (RC = 2 x s.d. of differences); (ii) RC expressed as a percentage of close to maximal variation (pMV = RC/(4 x s.d. of the mean of paired recordings)); (iii) coefficient of variation (CV); (iv) concordance correlation coefficient (CCC); (v) agreement (kappa) between the two AASI measurements to detect subjects at the top quartile of the respective AASI distributions. RESULTS: There was no difference in average AASI values between the two assessments. For 24-h, daytime, night time, and symmetrical AASI, respectively, (i) RC values were 0.24, 0.38, 0.42, and 0.30; (ii) pMV 49.6, 68.8, 73.9, and 56; (iii) CV 40.3, 39.3, 62.9, and 116.3; (iv) CCC 0.60, 0.35, 0.28, and 0.52; (v) agreement 82.5% (kappa 0.54), 72.2% (0.28), 73% (0.22), and 81.7% (0.50). Differences in 24-h mean arterial ambulatory pressure (MAP) and in nocturnal MAP decline between the two assessments were significant determinants of the differences in 24-h and symmetrical AASI values. CONCLUSIONS: Although no differences were found in average AASI values of the two ambulatory recordings, significant differences were observed in their reproducibility, with 24-h AASI being the most reproducible measure in terms of all the examined criteria.American Journal of Hypertension 2010; doi:10.1038/ajh.2009.217.

Intraindividual reproducibility of blood pressure surge upon rising after nighttime sleep and siesta.

The surge in blood pressure (BP) upon rising after waking in the morning has been associated with increased risk of target organ damage and cardiovascular events. The reproducibility of this phenomenon within the same 24-h period was tested in subjects with a siesta during ambulatory BP monitoring by assessing the morning surge (MS) vs. the evening surge (ES) after siesta. Ambulatory BP recordings with reported siesta from hypertensive subjects were analyzed. MS and ES were assessed using four different definitions. The intraindividual reproducibility was assessed using the standard deviation of differences between MS and ES, the concordance correlation coefficient, the coefficient of variation and the agreement between MS and ES in detecting "surgers" among hypertensive subjects (top quartile of the BP surge distribution). A total of 562 ambulatory recordings were analyzed (476 subjects, mean age 54.9+/-13.2 [SD] years, treated 47%). Average MS (16.3/14.4 mmHg, systolic/diastolic) was higher than ES (13.3/12.1 mmHg, p<0.001) due to higher post-rising BP in the morning (p<0.01). The intraindividual reproducibility was rather poor, with no clear differences among different definitions. However, there was about 70% agreement between MS and ES in the detection of "surgers" (systolic and diastolic, kappa statistic 0.18). These data suggest that, although the intraindividual reproducibility of the BP surge within the same 24-h period is rather poor, about 70% of the "morning surgers" were also "evening surgers." Thus, the BP surge might be an inherent pathophysiological characteristic of the BP behavior of an individual and deserves further investigation.

Morning blood pressure surge: the reliability of different definitions.

Preliminary evidence suggests that the morning surge (MS) in blood pressure (BP) is an independent predictor of cerebrovascular disease. However, the optimal definition of MS is uncertain. To compare the reproducibility of several MS definitions used in the literature, 132 untreated hypertensives were assessed with ambulatory BP monitoring twice, 2 weeks apart. Five MS definitions were compared. MS-1: the average BP of the first hour after rising minus the average BP of the first hour before rising; MS-2: BP 2 h after rising minus that of 2 h before rising; MS-3: BP 3 h after rising minus that of 3 h before rising; MS-4: BP 2 h after rising minus the average BP during sleep; MS-5: BP 2 h after rising minus the average BP of 3 consecutive readings, centered on the lowest reading during sleep. The reproducibility of each MS definition was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), the standard deviation of differences (SDD) and the coefficient of variation (CV) between repeated MS assessments, and the agreement in detecting "surgers," defined as subjects at the top quartile (Q4) of the MS distribution. CCCs were 0.20/0.30, 0.43/0.45, 0.53/0.51, 0.51/0.47, and 0.46/0.48 (systolic/diastolic) for MS-1 to MS-5 respectively; SDDs were 14.3/11.4, 12.1/9.9, 11.2/9.5, 10.3/8.2, and 11.9/9.8, respectively; CVs were 0.49/0.57, 0.44/0.39, 0.37/0.35, 0.36/0.31, and 0.27/0.24, respectively; and the agreement in detecting "surgers" was 69%/70%, 71%/76%, 75%/75%, 81%/83%, and 74%/75%, with kappa of 0.18/0.20, 0.23/0.36, 0.33/0.33, 0.49/0.53 and 0.29/0.31, respectively. There are important differences in the reproducibility of MS calculated by different methods. MS4 appears to provide the most reproducible definition of MS.

Home blood pressure monitoring in children: how many measurements are needed?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the minimum schedule of blood pressure (BP) measurements necessary to provide a reliable assessment of home BP (HBP) in children and adolescents. METHODS: Subjects aged 6-18 years referred for elevated BP were assessed with HBP monitoring (6 workdays, duplicate morning and evening measurements) and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABP). Criteria for HBP reliability were its reproducibility (test-retest correlations and SD of differences (SDDs) between repeated measurements), its stability (average home BP of an increasing number of readings and its SD), and its relationship with ABP. RESULTS: Data from 100 subjects were analyzed (mean age 13 +/- 2.8 (SD) years, 61 boys). The reproducibility of 3-day HBP (r 0.88/0.79, SDDs 5.1/4.9, systolic/diastolic) was superior to that of a single (r 0.79/0.65, SDDs 7.6/7.1) or 2-day HBP (r 0.85/0.72, SDDs 6.1/5.4). By averaging up to 12 readings (3 days), there was a progressive decline in average HBP, with no further decline thereafter. The SD of average HBP was also progressively reduced, with little change after day 3. The association of HBP with ABP was improved by averaging more readings up to 12, with no further improvement when more readings were averaged. The exclusion of first-day measurements slightly increased the SD of average HBP and weakened the correlation with ABP, probably due to reduced number of readings. CONCLUSIONS: In children and adolescents, 3-day monitoring with duplicate morning and evening measurements appears to be the minimum schedule for the reliable assessment of HBP.

Home blood pressure is as reliable as ambulatory blood pressure in predicting target-organ damage in hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess the value of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in comparison to office BP measurements and ambulatory monitoring in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage. METHODS: Sixty-eight untreated patients with hypertension with at least two routine prestudy office visits were included (mean age, 48.6 +/- 9.1 [SD] years; 50 men). Office BP was measured in two study visits, home BP was measured for 6 workdays, and ambulatory BP was monitored for 24 h. All BP measurements were obtained using validated electronic devices. Target-organ damage was assessed by measuring the echocardiographic left-ventricular mass index (LVMI), urinary albumin excretion rate (AER) in two overnight urine collections, and carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (PWV) (Complior device; Colson, Garges-les-Gonesse, Paris, France). RESULTS: The correlation coefficients of LVMI with office BP were 0.24/0.15 (systolic/diastolic), with home BP 0.35/0.21 (systolic, P < .01), and with 24-h ambulatory BP 0.23/0.19, awake 0.21/0.16, and asleep 0.28/0.26 (asleep, both P < .05). The correlation coefficients of AER with office BP were 0.24/0.31 (diastolic, P < .05), with home BP 0.28/0.26 (both P < .05), and with 24-h ambulatory BP 0.25/0.24, awake 0.24/0.25 (diastolic, P < .05), and asleep 0.26/0.18 (systolic, P < .05). There was a trend for negative correlations between PWV and diastolic BP measurements (not significant). In multiple-regression models assessing independent predictors of each of the three indices of target-organ damage, systolic home BP and age were the only independent predictors of increased LVMI that reached borderline statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that home BP is as reliable as ambulatory monitoring in predicting hypertension-induced target-organ damage, and is superior to carefully taken office measurements.

Masked hypertension assessed by ambulatory blood pressure versus home blood pressure monitoring: is it the same phenomenon?

BACKGROUND: Masked hypertension is defined as normal clinic blood pressure (CBP) and elevated out-of-clinic blood pressure assessed using either self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) by the patients at home (HBP) or ambulatory BP (ABP) monitoring. This study investigated the level of agreement between ABP and HBP in the diagnosis of masked hypertension. METHODS: Participants referred to an outpatient hypertension clinic had measurements of CBP (two visits), HBP (4 days), and ABP (24 h). The diagnosis of masked hypertension based on HBP (CBP <140/90 mm Hg and HBP > or =135/85) versus ABP (CBP <140/90 and awake ABP > or =135/85) was compared. RESULTS: A total of 438 subjects were included (mean age +/- SD, 51.5 +/- 11.6 years; 59% men and 41% women, 34% treated and 66% untreated). Similar proportions of subjects with masked hypertension were diagnosed by ABP (14.2%) and HBP (11.9%). In both treated and untreated subjects, the masked hypertension phenomenon was as common as the white coat phenomenon. Among 132 subjects with normal CBP, there was disagreement in the diagnosis of masked hypertension between the HBP and the ABP method in 23% of subjects for systolic and 30% for diastolic BP (kappa 0.56). When a 5-mm Hg gray zone for uncertain diagnosis was applied to the diagnostic threshold, the disagreement was reduced to 9% and 6% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar proportions of subjects with masked hypertension are detected by ABP and HBP monitoring. Although disagreement in the diagnosis between the two methods is not uncommon, in the majority of these cases the deviation of the diagnostic BP above the threshold in not clinically important. Both ABP and HBP monitoring appear to be appropriate methods for the detection of masked hypertension.

Intraindividual blood pressure responses to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and angiotensin receptor blockade.

This study aims to test the hypothesis that in some hypertensive subjects the blood pressure (BP) response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition differs from that to angiotensin receptor blockade (ARB); a responder to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition may not respond to ARB or the opposite. A randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative trial of lisinopril 20 mg compared with telmisartan 80 mg (5 weeks per treatment period) was conducted in 32 untreated hypertensives using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Subjects were classified as "responders" and "nonresponders" using an arbitrary threshold of ambulatory BP response (> or =10 mm Hg systolic or > or =5 diastolic) or the median response achieved by each drug. No difference was detected between the drugs in their effect on ambulatory BP (mean difference 1.2+/-7.1/0.7+/-5.1 mm Hg, systolic/diastolic). Significant correlations were found between the antihypertensive responses to the two drugs (r=0.77, p<0.001). Using the arbitrary response criterion, there was a difference between the drugs in the responses in 28%/13% of subjects (9/4 patients) for systolic/diastolic BP (19%/25% using the median response criterion). These data suggest that in some hypertensive patients the BP response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition may fail to predict the response to ARB. It appears that there are differences in the antihypertensive action of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs that may be clinically important.

White coat effect in treated versus untreated hypertensive individuals: a case-control study using ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have shown a significant white coat effect (WCE) (i.e., difference between clinic blood pressure [CBP] and awake ambulatory blood pressure [ABP]) to be present not only in untreated but also in treated hypertensive individuals. This study aims to assess 1) the prevalence and the magnitude of the WCE in treated versus untreated hypertensive persons, and 2) the usefulness of home blood pressure (HBP) versus ABP in the detection of this phenomenon. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted in 138 treated hypertensive patients and same number of sex- and age-matched untreated hypertensive subjects who had measurements of CBP (at least three visits), HBP, and ABP. Subjects with a WCE of >20/10 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) were classified as clinic reactors. RESULTS: There was a trend for a larger WCE assessed by ABP monitoring in the untreated group (mean difference in systolic WCE, 1.8 +/- 22.2 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.0 to 5.5; diastolic 1.8 +/- 11.9 mm Hg, 95% CI -0.2 to 3.8) and for more untreated clinic reactors (27% untreated v 20% treated, odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.7). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of HBP to detect clinic reactors correctly were 56%/62% (treated/untreated), 87%/84%, 52%/59%, and 89%/86%, respectively, with moderate agreement between HBP and ABP (kappa 0.42/0.46). CONCLUSIONS: In treated hypertensive patients, WCE seems to be reduced compared with that in untreated hypertensive persons but is not eliminated. In both untreated and treated hypertensive individuals HBP monitoring appears to be useful in the detection of the WCE, but it may not be appropriate as an alternative to the ABP method.

Home or self blood pressure measurement? What is the correct term?

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure measurements taken by patients at home (HBP) are usually referred to as 'self' or 'home' measurements. To demonstrate the most appropriate term we compared self-home measurements (S-HBP), with home measurements taken by relatives (R-HBP), clinic measurements taken by physicians (P-CBP) and self-measurements in the clinic (S-CBP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty treated hypertensives were randomized to an initial clinic BP (CBP) monitoring period (week 1, P-CBP followed by S-CBP measurements, or the opposite; 1 visit each), then to a HBP monitoring period (weeks 2-3, S-HBP followed by R-HBP or the opposite; 3 workdays each), and finally to a second CBP monitoring period (week 4, S-CBP followed by P-CBP, or the opposite). Triplicate morning trough measurements were taken per occasion using the same fully automated device. RESULTS: There was no difference between S-CBP and P-CBP (mean difference -1.9 +/- 6.1 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.2, 0.4/-1.6 +/- 4.7, 95% CI -3.3, 0.2, systolic/diastolic), or between S-HBP and R-HBP (-0.9 +/- 6.9, 95% CI -3.5, 1.8/-0.4 +/- 4.3, 95% CI -2.0, 1.2). S-CBP was higher than S-HBP (mean difference 9.3 +/- 9.0/4.9 +/- 5.4 mmHg, systolic/diastolic, P < 0.001) and R-HBP (8.4 +/- 9.1/4.5 +/- 5.0, P < 0.001). P-CBP was also higher than S-HBP (11.2 +/- 11.9/6.5 +/- 6.8, P < 0.001) and R-HBP (10.3 +/- 11.2/6.1 +/- 6.5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Self-measurements provide similar BP levels to measurements taken by relatives or physicians, provided that measurements are taken in the same setting. 'Self-BP' is a misnomer because self-measurement has no impact on the difference between home and clinic BP. Given that this difference can be exclusively attributed to the effect of the different setting, the term 'home BP' represents a more appropriate term.

Blood pressure- and pulse pressure-lowering effects, trough:peak ratio and smoothness index of telmisartan compared with lisinopril.

OBJECTIVE: To compare lisinopril with telmisartan, in regard to: 1) their effect on blood pressure (BP) and pulse pressure (PP), and 2) the duration and the homogeneity of their antihypertensive effect. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative study of telmisartan 80 mg versus lisinopril 20 mg was conducted in 32 untreated hypertensive patients using clinic and 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements. Trough: peak ratio (TPR) and smoothness index (SI) were calculated for each drug. RESULTS: Using both measurement techniques no difference was detected between the 2 drugs in their effects either on BP (mean difference in 24-hour systolic BP 1.2 +/- 7.1 mm Hg, 95% confidence intervals -1.4, 3.8, and diastolic 0.7 +/- 5.1, -1.2, 2.5) or on PP (0.5 +/- 3.5, -0.7, 1.8). There was no difference between the TPR and the SI values of telmisartan (TPR 0.85/0.61 for systolic/diastolic BP and SI 1.46/1.2) and lisinopril (TPR 0.74/0.64 and SI 1.3/1.17). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that telmisartan is as effective as lisinopril in reducing BP and PP. Both drugs seem to provide smooth and sustained effects throughout the full 24-hour period.