Diagnosis of Pediatric Hypertension: European Society of Hypertension-Recommended 24-Hour vs. 24-Hour-Day-Night Ambulatory Blood Pressure Thresholds

Impact of the 2022 American Heart Association pediatric ambulatory blood pressure monitoring statement on the diagnosis of hypertension

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of hypertension and hypertension-induced target organ injury by the 2022 American Heart Association (AHA) ambulatory blood pressure threshold as compared with 2014 AHA and 2016 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) thresholds has not been evaluated.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study (n = 291, aged 5-18 years, at a tertiary care outpatient clinic), we compared 2022 AHA with 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds (revised with 2018 adult ESH thresholds where applicable) to diagnose ambulatory hypertension (AH), and detect ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) and left ventricular target organ injury (LVTOI).

RESULTS

The 2022 AHA threshold diagnosed significantly more AH (53%) than the 2014 AHA (42%, p < 0.01) and ESH (36%, p < 0.001) thresholds. The 2022 AHA threshold demonstrated only a moderate agreement with the 2014 AHA (kappa (k) = 0.77) and ESH (k = 0.66) thresholds to diagnose AH. Adjusted logistic regression analysis found that only the 2022 AHA threshold predicted elevated AASI significantly (odds ratio 2.40, 95% CI 1.09, 5.25, p = 0.02; AUC 0.61, p < 0.01). In those with elevated AASI, more participants had AH by the 2022 AHA threshold (72%) than the 2014 AHA (46%, p = 0.02) and ESH (48%, p = 0.03) thresholds. AH defined by the 2022 AHA threshold continued to maintain higher odds, larger AUC, and higher sensitivity to identify LVTOI than the 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds; however, the difference did not reach a statistically significant level.

CONCLUSIONS

AH defined by the 2022 AHA threshold diagnoses more children with hypertension and identifies more children with hypertension-induced target organ injury than the 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Ambulatory hypertension diagnosed by 24-h mean ambulatory versus day and night ambulatory blood pressure thresholds in children: a cross-sectional study

Background

The agreement between the commonly used ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) thresholds to diagnose ambulatory hypertension in children (patient’s 24-h mean ABP classified by 24-h 95th ABP percentile threshold, American Heart Association [AHA] threshold, or patient’s day and night mean ABP classified by day-night 95th ABP percentile thresholds) is not known. We evaluated the agreement among 24-h ABP threshold, AHA threshold, and day-night ABP thresholds to diagnose ambulatory hypertension, white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MH).

Methods

In a cross-sectional study design, we analyzed ABP recordings from 450 participants with suspected hypertension from a tertiary care outpatient hypertension clinic. The American Academy of Pediatrics thresholds were used to diagnose office hypertension.

Results

The 24-h ABP threshold and day-night ABP thresholds classified 19% ABP (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.23) differently into ambulatory normotension/hypertension (kappa [κ], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51–0.66). Ambulatory hypertension diagnosed by 24-h ABP threshold in 27% participants (95% CI, 0.22–0.32) was significantly lower than that by day-night ABP thresholds in 44% participants (95% CI, 0.37–0.50; P < 0.001). The AHA threshold had a stronger agreement with 24-h ABP threshold than with day-night ABP thresholds for classifying ABP into ambulatory normotension/hypertension (k 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.98 vs. k 0.59, 95% CI 0.52–0.66). The diagnosis of ambulatory hypertension by the AHA threshold (26%; 95% CI, 0.21–0.31) was closer to that by 24-h ABP threshold (27%, P = 0.73) than by day-night ABP thresholds (44%, P < 0.001). Similar agreement pattern persisted among these ABP thresholds for diagnosing WCH and MH.

Conclusions

The 24-h ABP threshold classifies a lower proportion of ABP as ambulatory hypertension than day-night ABP thresholds. The AHA threshold exhibits a stronger agreement with 24-h ABP than with day-night ABP thresholds for diagnosing ambulatory hypertension, WCH and MH. Our findings are relevant for a consistent interpretation of hypertension by these ABP thresholds in clinical practice.

Variation in paediatric 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring interpretation by Canadian and UK physicians

Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is widely accepted as a more accurate method for measurement of blood pressure (BP) compared to a single office-based measurement of BP. However, it is unclear how physicians interpret ABPM and make management decisions. This study's goal is to investigate variation in ABPM interpretation among paediatric nephrologists (Canada and UK) and paediatric cardiologists (Canada only) via an online survey. The survey content included baseline demographics, questions on the use and indications for ABPM, interpretation of results, and subsequent management decisions in various clinical scenarios. The survey was sent to 196 Canadian physicians, with 69 (35.2%) total responses. Thirty-five UK clinicians also completed the survey. Most respondents were >44 years old, were in practice for at least 11 years, and were university-based. There were substantial differences among clinicians in ABPM interpretation for isolated systolic, diastolic, and night-time hypertension. For example, only 53.1% of physicians would initiate or modify treatment in those with diastolic HTN in CKD. Further, even for the same abnormal ABPM parameter, the decision to start or alter treatment was influenced by the underlying medical condition. There is significant variation in clinical practice among physicians for interpretation and management of hypertension when using ABPM. Differences in guidelines among various jurisdictions, as well as knowledge gaps in the research on which guidelines are based, create ambiguity regarding ABPM interpretation and management decisions. A more protocolized approach and further insight into the reasoning behind the variation in physicians' interpretation may help to standardise practice.

Associations between toxic elements and blood pressure parameters in adolescents

BACKGROUND

Both exposure to toxic elements and hypertension (HT) are a global health problem. We planned to examine the associations between some toxic elements in urine, and blood pressure (BP) and its diurnal changes in adolescents.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 48 adolescents who were newly diagnosed with HT and 38 adolescents with age-appropriate BP and normal physical examination were included. Anthropometric measurements, urinary toxic elements, carotid intima media thickness (cIMT), and office and 24-hour ambulatory BP measurements (ABPM) of participants were taken. Urinary elements levels were studied with ICP-MS. Elements were grouped in tertiles according to urinary levels. Logistic regression analyses were performed to show the interactions.

RESULTS

Urinary cadmium, mercury, lead, and arsenic were found to be at detectable level in 90.7%, 69.8%, 91.9% and 100% of the participants, respectively. Univariate analyses showed that elevated daytime systolic and/or diastolic BP was associated with urinary cadmium and mercury. No association between urinary toxic elements and nighttime BP was found. When height and body mass index z-scores adjusted for, age, gender, and all four urinary creatinine-corrected toxic elements analyzed, multiple logistic regression revealed that there was an association between mercury (high vs. low; AOR:3.85) and office HT, and mercury (high vs. low; AOR:6.18) and cadmium (middle vs. low; AOR: 13.38) were associated with "elevated 24-hour systolic BP and/or diastolic BP", and "elevated 24-hour mean arterial BP" in ABPM.

CONCLUSION

There are complex relationships between toxic elements and BP parameters in adolescents, and more studies are needed to define the evolution of these relations.

Diagnosis of hypertension: Ambulatory pediatric American Heart Association/European Society of Hypertension versus blood pressure load thresholds

The agreement between the traditionally‐used ambulatory blood pressure (ABP)‐load thresholds in children and recently‐recommended pediatric American Heart Association (AHA)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) ABP thresholds for diagnosing ambulatory hypertension (AH), white coat hypertension (WCH), and masked hypertension (MH) has not been evaluated. In this cross‐sectional study on 450 outpatient participants, the authors evaluated the agreement between previously used ABP‐load 25%, 30%, 40%, 50% thresholds and the AHA/ESH thresholds for diagnosing AH, WCH, and MH. The American Academy of Pediatrics thresholds were used to diagnose office hypertension. The AHA threshold diagnosed ambulatory normotension/hypertension closest to ABP load 50% in 88% (95% CI 0.79, 0.96) participants (k 0.67, 95% CI 0.59, 0.75) and the ESH threshold diagnosed ambulatory normotension/hypertension closest to ABP load 40% in 86% (95% CI 0.77, 0.94) participants (k 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.74). In contrast, the AHA/ESH thresholds had a relatively weaker agreement with ABP load 25%/30%. Therefore, the diagnosis of AH was closest between the AHA threshold and ABP load 50% (difference 3%, 95% CI ‐2.6%, 8.6%, p = .29) and between the ESH threshold and ABP load 40% (difference 4%, 95% CI ‐2.1%, 10.1%, p = .19) than between the AHA/ESH and ABP load 25%/30% thresholds. A similar agreement pattern persisted between the AHA/ESH and various ABP load thresholds for diagnosing WCH and MH. The AHA and ESH thresholds diagnosed AH, WCH, and MH closest to ABP load 40%/50% than ABP load 25%/30%. Future outcome‐based studies are needed to guide the optimal use of these ABP thresholds in clinical practice.