Diagnosis of hypertension using home or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: comparison with the conventional strategy based on repeated clinic blood pressure measurements

Validation of oscillometric ratio and maximum gradient methods for non-invasive blood pressure measurement with intra-arterial blood pressure measurements as reference

Most non-invasive blood pressure (BP) measurements are carried out using instruments which implement either the Ratio or the Maximum Gradient oscillometric method, mostly during cuff deflation, but more rarely during cuff inflation. Yet, there is little published literature on the relative advantages and accuracy of these two methods. In this study of 40 lightly sedated individuals aged 64.1 ± 9.6 years, we evaluate and compare the performance of the oscillometric ratio (K) and gradient (Grad) methods for the non-invasive estimation of mean pressure, SBP and DBP with reference to invasive intra-arterial values. There was no significant difference between intra-arterial estimates of mean pressure made via Korotkoff sounds (MP-OWE) or the gradient method (MP-Grad). However, 17.7% of MP-OWE and 15% of MP-Grad were in error by more than 10 mmHg. SBP-K and SBP-Grad underestimated SBP by 14 and 18 mmHg, whilst accurately estimating DBP with mean errors of 0.4 ± 5.0 and 1.7 ± 6.1 mmHg, respectively. Relative to the reference standard SBP-K, SBP-Grad and DBP-Grad were estimated with a mean error of -4.5 ± 6.6 and 1.4 ± 5.6 mmHg, respectively, noting that using the full range of recommended ratios introduces errors of 12 and 7 mmHg in SBP and DBP, respectively. We also show that it is possible to find ratios which minimize the root mean square error (RMSE) and the mean error for any particular individual cohort. We developed linear models for estimating SBP and SBP-K from a range of demographic and non-invasive OWE variables with resulting mean errors of 0.15 ± 5.6 and 0.3 ± 5.7 mmHg, acceptable according to the Universal standard.

Agreement between attended home and ambulatory blood pressure measurements in adolescents with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare attended home blood pressure (BP) measurements (HBPM) with ambulatory BP monitor (ABPM) readings and examine if level of agreement between measurement modalities differs overall and by subgroup.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from a 2-year, multicenter observational study of children 11-19 years (mean 15, SD = 2.7) with chronic kidney disease. Participants had 3 standardized resting oscillometric home BPs taken by staff followed by 24-h ABPM within 2 weeks of home BP. BP indices (measured BP/95%ile BP) were calculated for mean triplicate attended HBPM and mean ABPM measurements. Paired HBPM and ABPM measurements taken during any of 5 study visits were compared using linear regression with robust standard errors. Generalized estimating equation-based logistic regression determined sensitivity, specificity, negative, and positive predictive values with ABPM as the gold standard. Analyses were conducted for the group overall and by subgroup.

RESULTS

A total of 103 participants contributed 251 paired measurements. Indexed systolic BP did not differ between HBPM and daytime APBM (mean difference - 0.002; 95% CI: - 0.006, 0.003); the difference in indexed diastolic BP was minimal (mean difference - 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.040, - 0.025). Overall agreement between HBPM and 24-h ABPM in identifying abnormal BP was high (81.8%). HBPM had higher sensitivity (87.5%) than specificity (77.4%) and greater negative (89.8%) than positive (73.3%) predictive value, and findings were consistent in subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Attended HBPM may be reasonable for monitoring BP when ABPM is unavailable. The greater accessibility and feasibility of attended HBPM may potentially help improve BP control among at-risk youth. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Controversies in Hypertension I: The Optimal Assessment of Blood Pressure Load and Implications for Treatment

The most important factor in treating hypertension is assessing an individual patient's true blood pressure load, the cornerstone being research-grade office determination. Office blood pressure should be supplemented with out-of-office measurement, including home and ambulatory monitoring (if available), which we consider complementary and not interchangeable. Controversy remains for initiation of treatment of white coat hypertension, where cardiovascular risk lies between normotension and sustained hypertension; antihypertensive therapy should be considered unless low cardiovascular risk, wherein pressures should be followed for progression to sustained hypertension. Available data do not support intensification of therapy for the white coat effect due to the similar cardiovascular risk to controlled hypertension. Given the higher cardiovascular risk of the masked effect, initiation of therapy for masked hypertension and intensification for masked uncontrolled hypertension are indicated, acknowledging the dearth of supporting data. Optimally, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the benefit of treating the 4 incongruous phenotypes between office and out-of-office measurements, that is, those with white coat or masked effects. We make no recommendations regarding chronotherapy pending results of ongoing trials.

Diagnosis and treatment of arterial hypertension 2021

In the last 4 years, several evidence-based, national, and international guidelines on the management of arterial hypertension have been published, mostly with concordant recommendations, but in some aspects with discordant opinions. This in-depth review takes these guidelines into account but also addresses several new data of interest. Although being somewhat obvious and simple, accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement with validated devices is the cornerstone of the diagnosis of hypertension, but out-of-office BP measurements are of crucial importance as well. Simplified antihypertensive drug treatment such as single-pill combinations enhances the adherence to medication and speeds up the process of getting into the BP target range, a goal not so far adequately respected. Recommended (single-pill) combination therapy includes diuretics as part of the first step of antihypertensive therapy, and updated analysis does not provide evidence to exclude diuretics from this first step because of the recently discussed potential risk of increasing cancer incidence. Target BP goals need to be individualized, according to comorbidities, hypertension-mediated organ damage, coexistence of cardiovascular risk factors (including age), frailty in the elderly, and individual tolerability. There are also concordant recommendations in the guidelines that an office BP between 120 and 140 mm Hg systolic and between 70 and 80 mm Hg diastolic should be achieved. The BP target of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes for hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease are not applicable for clinical practice because they heavily rely on 1 study that used a study-specific, nontransferable BP measurement technique and excluded the most common cause of chronic kidney disease, namely, diabetic nephropathy. Actual data even from a prospective trial on chronotherapy have to be disregarded, and antihypertensive medication should not be routinely dosed at bedtime. Rigorously conducted trials justify the revival of renal denervation for treatment of (at least, but not only) uncontrolled and treatment-resistant hypertension.

Algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using out-of-office blood pressure measurements

The authors developed and validated a diagnostic algorithm using the optimal upper and lower cut‐off values of office and home BP at which ambulatory BP measurements need to be applied. Patients presenting with high BP (≥140/90 mm Hg) at the outpatient clinic were referred to measure office, home, and ambulatory BP. Office and home BP were divided into hypertension, intermediate (requiring diagnosis using ambulatory BP), and normotension zones. The upper and lower BP cut‐off levels of intermediate zone were determined corresponding to a level of 95% specificity and 95% sensitivity for detecting daytime ambulatory hypertension by using the receiver operator characteristic curve. A diagnostic algorithm using three methods, OBP‐ABP: office BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if office BP is intermediate zone; OBP‐HBP‐ABP: office BP, subsequent home BP measurement if office BP is within intermediate zone and subsequent ambulatory BP measurement if home BP is within intermediate zone; and HBP‐ABP: home BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if home BP is within intermediate zone, were developed and validated. In the development population (n = 256), the developed algorithm yielded better diagnostic accuracies than 75.8% (95%CI 70.1–80.9) for office BP alone and 76.2% (95%CI 70.5–81.3) for home BP alone as follows: 96.5% (95%CI: 93.4–98.4) for OBP‐ABP, 93.4% (95%CI: 89.6–96.1) for OBP‐HBP‐ABP, and 94.9% (95%CI: 91.5–97.3%) for HBP‐ABP.  In the validation population (n = 399), the developed algorithm showed similarly improved diagnostic accuracy. The developed algorithm applying ambulatory BP measurement to the intermediate zone of office and home BP improves the diagnostic accuracy for hypertension.

Options for the diagnosis of high blood pressure in primary care: a systematic review and economic model

The 2011 NICE hypertension guideline (CG127) undertook a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of different blood pressure (BP) assessment methods to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension. The guideline also undertook a cost-utility analysis exploring the cost-effectiveness of the monitoring methods. A new systematic review was undertaken as part of the 2019 NICE hypertension guideline update (NG136). BP monitoring methods compared included Ambulatory BP, Clinic BP and Home BP. Ambulatory BP was the reference standard. The economic model from the 2011 guideline was updated with this new accuracy data. Home BP was more sensitive and specific than Clinic BP. Specificity improved more than sensitivity since the 2011 review. A higher specificity translates into fewer people requiring unnecessary treatment. A key interest was to compare Home BP and Ambulatory BP, and whether any improvement in Home BP accuracy would change the model results. Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in all age and sex subgroups. In all subgroups, Ambulatory BP was associated with lower costs than Clinic BP and Home BP. In all except one subgroup (females aged 40), Ambulatory BP was dominant. However, Ambulatory BP remained the most cost-effective option in 40-year-old females as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Home BP versus Ambulatory BP was above the NICE £20,000 threshold. The new systematic review showed that the accuracy of both Clinic BP and Home BP has increased. However, Ambulatory BP remains the most cost-effective option to confirm a diagnosis of hypertension in all subgroups evaluated.

Screening for Hypertension in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and can be modified through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements in adults, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for effectiveness of screening; accuracy studies for screening and confirmatory measurements (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard); RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies and observational studies for harms of screening and confirmation.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; meta-analyses and qualitative syntheses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality; cardiovascular events; quality of life; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values; harms of screening.

RESULTS

A total of 52 studies (N = 215 534) were identified in this systematic review. One cluster RCT (n = 140 642) of a multicomponent intervention including hypertension screening reported fewer annual cardiovascular-related hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference, 3.02 per 1000 people; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n = 11 309) of initial office-based blood pressure screening showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (n = 57 128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of 8 office-based confirmation studies (n = 53 183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66). Meta-analysis of 4 home-based confirmation studies (n = 1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). Thirteen studies (n = 5150) suggested that screening was associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress; evidence on absenteeism was mixed. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement was associated with temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.

Diagnostic performance of clinic and home blood pressure measurements compared with ambulatory blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinic blood pressure measurement (CBPM) is currently the most commonly used form of screening for hypertension, however it might have a problem detecting white coat hypertension (WCHT) and masked hypertension (MHT). Home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) may be an alternative, but its diagnostic performance is inconclusive relative to CBPM. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to estimate the performance of CBPM and HBPM compared with ambulatory blood pressure measurement(ABPM) and to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT.

METHODS

Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases were searched up to 23rd January 2020. Studies having diagnostic tests as CBPM or HBPM with reference standard as ABPM, reporting sensitivity and specificity of both tests and/or proportion of WCHT or MHT were eligible. Diagnostic performance of CBPM and HBPM were pooled using bivariate mixed-effect regression model. Random effect model was applied to pool prevalence of WCHT and MHT.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of CBPM, when using 24-h ABPM as the reference standard, were 74% (95% CI: 65-82%), 79% (95% CI: 69%, 87%), and 11.11 (95% CI: 6.82, 14.20), respectively. Pooled prevalence of WCHT and MHT were 0.24 (95% CI 0.19, 0.29) and 0.29 (95% CI 0.20, 0.38). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR of HBPM were 71% (95% CI 61%, 80%), 82% (95% CI 77%, 87%), and 11.60 (95% CI 8.98, 15.13), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic performances of HBPM were slightly higher than CBPM. However, the prevalence of MHT was high in negative CBPM and some persons with normal HBPM had elevated BP from 24-h ABPM. Therefore, ABPM is still necessary for confirming the diagnosis of HT.

The correlation between neck circumference and risk factors in patients with hypertension: What matters

It is necessary to identify the relationship between neck circumference and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with hypertension.Patients with hypertension treated in our hospital were included. The height, weight, neck circumference, waist circumference, fasting blood glucose, 2 h blood glucose (2hPPG), density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were analyzed and compared.A total of 2860 patients with hypertension were included. There were significant differences between male and female patients in the neck circumference, waist circumference, fasting blood glucose, Total cholesterol, triacylglycerol, HDL-C, LDL-C, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, drinking and smoking (all P < .05); the neck circumference was positively correlated with waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), fasting blood glucose, 2hPPG, HbA1c, triacylglycerol and LDL-C (all P < .05), and negatively correlated with HDL-C (P = .014); as the neck circumference increases, the risk of hypertension, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, abdominal obesity, and dyslipidemia increases accordingly (all P < .05); the area under curve (AUC) was 0.827 and 0.812, and the neck circumference of 37.8 and 33.9 cm was the best cut-off point for male and female patients, respectively.Neck circumference is closely related to cardiovascular risk factors in patients with hypertension, which should be promoted in the screening of cardiovascular diseases.

Blood Pressure Measurement: A KDOQI Perspective

The majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have elevated blood pressure (BP). In patients with CKD, hypertension is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, progression of CKD, and all-cause mortality. New guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend new thresholds and targets for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in patients with and without CKD. A new aspect of the guidelines is the recommendation for measurement of out-of-office BP to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension and guide therapy. In this KDOQI (Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) perspective, we review the recommendations for accurate BP measurement in the office, at home, and with ambulatory BP monitoring. Regardless of location, validated devices and appropriate cuff sizes should be used. In the clinic and at home, proper patient preparation and positioning are critical. Patients should receive information about the importance of BP measurement techniques and be encouraged to advocate for adherence to guideline recommendations. Implementing appropriate BP measurement in routine practice is feasible and should be incorporated in system-wide efforts to improve the care of patients with hypertension. Hypertension is the number 1 chronic disease risk factor in the world; BP measurements in the office, at home, and with ambulatory BP monitoring should adhere to recommendations from the AHA.

Blood Pressure Assessment in Adults in Clinical Practice and Clinic-Based Research: JACC Scientific Expert Panel

The accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is essential for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. Restricted use of mercury devices, increased use of oscillometric devices, discrepancies between clinic and out-of-clinic BP, and concerns about measurement error with manual BP measurement techniques have resulted in uncertainty for clinicians and researchers. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health convened a working group of clinicians and researchers in October 2017 to review data on BP assessment among adults in clinical practice and clinic-based research. In this report, the authors review the topics discussed during a 2-day meeting including the current state of knowledge on BP assessment in clinical practice and clinic-based research, knowledge gaps pertaining to current BP assessment methods, research and clinical needs to improve BP assessment, and the strengths and limitations of using BP obtained in clinical practice for research and quality improvement activities.

Which out-of-office measurement technique should be used for diagnosing hypertension in prehypertensives?

Hypertension (HT) is diagnosed with high office blood pressure (BP), although confirmation with the addition of out-of-office measurements is currently recommended. However, insufficient data are available concerning the use of out-of-office BP measurement techniques for the diagnosis of HT in the prehypertensive population. The aim of the present study was to determine which out-of-office measurements yielded earlier and more frequent detection of development of HT in prehypertensive patients. Two hundred seven prehypertensive patients under monitoring in the Cappadocia cohort were included in the study. Office BP was measured five times at 1-min intervals, followed by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (24-h ABPM). Home BP measurement (HBPM) was performed five times, at the same times in the morning and evening, at 1-min intervals for 1 week. The same procedure was carried out at 4–6-month intervals for ~2 years. HT was diagnosed in 25.6% of subjects, masked HT in 11.1%, and white coat HT in 2.9%, while 23.7% remained prehypertensive and 36.7% became normotensive. Briefly, 56.6% of the patients with HT were diagnosed with office plus 24-h ABPM, 13.2% with office plus HBPM, and 30.2% with office plus HBPM and 24-h ABPM. Office with 24-h ABPM yielded statistically significantly more diagnoses (p < 0.001). In conclusion, our prospective observational study evaluated the usefulness of out-of-office BP measurements in confirming diagnosis of HT in prehypertensive patients. The findings show that 24-h ABPM detected HT earlier and more frequently in this high-risk population.

Blood pressure differences between home monitoring and daytime ambulatory values and their reproducibility in treated hypertensive stroke and TIA patients

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend ambulatory or home blood pressure monitoring to improve hypertension diagnosis and monitoring. Both these methods are ascribed the same threshold values, but whether they produce similar results has not been established in certain patient groups.

METHODS

Adults with mild/moderate stroke or transient ischemic attack (N = 80) completed 2 sets of ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure values from contemporaneous measurements were compared, and the limits of agreement were assessed. Exploratory analyses for predictive factors of any difference were conducted.

RESULTS

Daytime ambulatory blood pressure values were consistently lower than home values, the mean difference in systolic blood pressure for initial ambulatory versus first home monitoring was -6.6 ± 13.5 mm Hg (P≤.001), and final ambulatory versus second home monitoring was -7.1 ± 11.0mm Hg (P≤.001). Mean diastolic blood pressure differences were -2.1 ± 8.5mm Hg (P=.03) and -2.0 ± 7.2mm Hg (P=.02). Limits of agreement for systolic blood pressure were -33.0 to 19.9mm Hg and -28.7 to 14.5mm Hg for the 2 comparisons and for DBP were -18.8 to 14.5mm Hg and -16.1 to 12.2mm Hg, respectively. The individual mean change in systolic blood pressure difference was 11.0 ± 8.3mm Hg across the 2 comparisons. No predictive factors for these differences were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Daytime ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were significantly lower than home monitored values at both time points. Differences between the 2 methods were not reproducible for individuals. Using the same threshold value for both out-of-office measurement methods may not be appropriate in patients with cerebrovascular disease.

Reliability of Automated Blood Pressure Devices used by Hypertensive Patients

Automated blood pressure (BP) devices are used by many hypertensive patients in Hong Kong, with or without medical advice. At two community clinics, we invited hypertensive patients aged between 40 and 70 years who used such a device to fill in a questionnaire and to have four sets of BP measurements, automated and mercury, at two visits. Of 290 hypertensive patients 120 fulfilled the criteria, and 73 of these agreed to participate.

53 devices measured arm BP, 21 measured forearm BP. The agreement between the mercury sphygmomanometer and the automated devices was poor, with average differences of 9.5 mmHg for systolic and 9.4 mmHg for diastolic and no clear advantage for either site of measurement. As a means of screening for BP >140/90 mmHg the sensitivity of the automated devices was 81% and the specificity was 80%. There were large variations in how often and under what circumstances the devices had been used. One-fifth of the devices had been acquired on medical advice but only 11% of the participants were aware of the three important conditions for operating such devices.

Discussion of automated devices, their role and proper use, should now be part of routine hypertensive care.

Hypertension in Athletes and Active Populations

Hypertension continues to be the most common cardiovascular disorder in the USA and worldwide. While generally considered a disorder of aging individuals, hypertension is more prevalent in athletes and the active population than is generally appreciated. The timely detection, diagnosis, and appropriate treatment of hypertension in athletes must focus on both adequately managing the disorder and ensuring safe participation in sport while not compromising exercise capacity. This publication focuses on appropriately diagnosing hypertension, treating hypertension in the athletic population, and suggesting follow-up and participation guidelines for athletes.

Presión Arterial Media en trabajadores obreros y oficinistas

Introducción: Los cambios en el estilo de vida y en las demandas en los tipos de trabajo han llevado una mayor tasa de sedentarismo y de tiempo de estar sentado durante el día. Se ha observado que el tiempo que un individuo pasa sentado durante el día está asociado a un incremento en el riesgo de padecer una enfermedad cardiovascular independientemente de la actividad física realizada por el individuo. El objetivo del estudio fue determinar si existe evidencia estadísticamente significativa entre los valores de presión arterial media y de índice de masa corporal entre un grupo de trabajadores de oficina y uno de trabajadores de bodega. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo longitudinal de 200 personas, 100 trabajadores de bodega, 100 de oficina, de diferentes empresas de la Ciudad de Guatemala de 20 a 40 años de edad. Resultados: Se evidenció diferencia estadísticamente significativa entre los valores de presión arterial media (PAM) de los grupos de bodega y oficina (88.03mmHg vs. 89.63mmHg). Los individuos que trabajan en bodega presentaron un mayor índice de masa corporal, el 46% de estos presentaron sobrepeso y el 24% obesidad. Los trabajadores de oficina presentaron un 27% y 12% respectivamente Conclusiones: Existe diferencia entre los valores de IMC y de PAM entre ambos grupos. Respecto al peso, se encontraron mayores valores en el grupo de bodega, el cual pasa menos tiempo sentado, lo cual se considera puede ser resultado de menor nivel de educación y status socioeconómico, lo que lleva a una menor conciencia de la salud y peores elecciones alimentarias entre otros.

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring and Echocardiographic Findings in Renal Transplant Recipients

Hypertension is common in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) is important in diagnosing hypertension and diurnal BP variation. The authors set out to compare office BP and ABPM measurements to determine diurnal pattern and to evaluate echocardiographic findings in RTRs. ABPM and office BP measurements were compared in 87 RTRs. Echocardiographic evaluation was performed for each patient. The correlations between office and 24-hour ABPM were 0.275 for mean systolic BP (P=.011) and 0.260 for mean diastolic BP (P=.017). Only 36.8% had concordant hypertension between office BP and ABPM, with a masked hypertension rate of 16.1% and white-coat effect rate of 24.1%. Circadian BP patterns showed a higher proportion of nondippers (67.8%). Left ventricular mass index was increased in 21.8% of all recipients. There was a significant but weak correlation between office BP and ABPM.

Ethnicity and differences between clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the relationship of ethnicity to the differences between blood pressure (BP) measured in a clinic setting and by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in individuals with a previous diagnosis of hypertension (HT) and without a previous diagnosis of hypertension (NHT).

METHODS

A cross-sectional comparison of BP measurement was performed in 770 participants (white British (WB, 39%), South Asian (SA, 31%), and African Caribbean (AC, 30%)) in 28 primary care clinics in West Midlands, United Kingdom. Mean differences between daytime ABPM, standardized clinic (mean of 3 occasions), casual clinic (first reading on first occasion), and last routine BP taken at the general practitioner practice were compared in HT and NHT individuals.

RESULTS

Daytime systolic and diastolic ABPM readings were similar to standardized clinic BP (systolic: 128 (SE 0.9) vs. 125 (SE 0.9) mm Hg (NHT) and 132 (SE 0.7) vs. 131 (SE 0.7) mm Hg (HT)) and were not associated with ethnicity to a clinically important extent. When BP was taken less carefully, differences emerged: casual clinic readings were higher than ABPM, particularly in the HT group where the systolic differences approached clinical relevance (131 (SE 1.2) vs. 129 (SE 1.0) mm Hg (NHT) and 139 (SE 0.9) vs. 133 (SE 0.7) mm Hg (HT)) and were larger in SA and AC hypertensive individuals (136 (SE 1.5) vs. 133 (SE 1.2) mm Hg (WB), 141 (SE 1.7) vs. 133 (SE 1.4) mm Hg (SA), and 142 (SE 1.6) vs. 134 (SE 1.3) mm Hg (AC); mean differences: 3 (0-7), P = 0.03 and 4 (1-7), P = 0.01, respectively). Differences were also observed for the last practice reading in SA and ACs.

CONCLUSIONS

BP differences between ethnic groups where BP is carefully measured on multiple occasions are small and unlikely to alter clinical management. When BP is measured casually on a single occasion or in routine care, differences appear that could approach clinical relevance.

Is home blood pressure monitoring useful in the management of patients with resistant hypertension?

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) is a cornerstone in resistant hypertension (RHT) management. However, it has higher cost and lower patients' acceptance than home BP monitoring (HBPM). Our objective was to evaluate HBPM usefulness in the management of patients with RHT.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients were submitted to 24-hour ABPM and 5-day HBPM (triplicate morning and evening measurements). Patients with uncontrolled office BP (≥140/90mm Hg) were classified as true RHT (daytime or home BP ≥135/85mm Hg) or white-coat RHT (daytime or home BP <135/85mm Hg), and patients with controlled office BP were classified as masked RHT (daytime or home BP ≥135/85mm Hg) or controlled RHT (daytime or home BP <135/85mm Hg). Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios for HBPM were calculated. Agreement between the procedures was evaluated using kappa coefficients and the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS

Mean office BP was 157±26/84±16mm Hg, mean daytime BP was 134±18/77±13mm Hg, and mean home BP was 143±20/76±14mm Hg. The ABPM and HBPM diagnoses were 35% and 48%, respectively, for true RHT; 36% and 23%, respectively, for white-coat RHT; 7% and 17%, respectively, for masked RHT; and 22% and 13%, respectively, for controlled RHT. HBPM overestimated systolic BP by 8.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.8-10.7) mm Hg and diastolic BP by 0.2 (95% CI = -1.0 to 1.4) mm Hg. The specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values of HBPM in detecting controlled ambulatory BP were 91%, 55%, 89%, and 59%.

CONCLUSIONS

HBPM presented good agreement with ABPM and can be used as a complementary method in the follow-up of resistant hypertensive patients, particularly in those with controlled ambulatory BPs.

Diagnosis and treatment of resistant hypertension

Hypertension resistant to lifestyle interventions and antihypertensive medications is a common problem encountered by physicians in everyday practice. It is most often defined as a blood pressure remaining ≥ 140/90 mmHg despite the regular intake of at least three drugs lowering blood pressure by different mechanisms, one of them being a diuretic. It now appears justified to include, unless contraindicated or not tolerated, a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system and a calcium channel blocker in this drug regimen, not only to gain antihypertensive efficacy, but also to prevent or regress target organ damage and delay the development of cardiorenal complications. A non-negligible fraction of treatment-resistant hypertension have normal "out of office" blood pressures. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and/or home blood pressure recording should therefore be routinely performed to identify patients with true resistant hypertension, i.e. patients who are more likely to benefit from treatment intensification.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in kidney transplant patients: RETENAL study

Hypertension is common following renal transplantation, affecting up to 80% of transplant recipients. It is generally accepted that hypertension is associated with poor graft survival and reduced life expectancy, contributing to increased cardiovascular risk factors and mortality rates. The aim of the study was to compare the blood pressure (BP) control in kidney transplant patients through the use of ambulatory BP monitoring (ABMP) versus office BP measurements (oBP). A multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted in 30 nephrology/kidney transplant units. Eligible patients included hypertensive cadaveric kidney transplant recipients aged <70 years, with a functioning kidney for at least 1 year and with an estimated glomerular filtration ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and a serum creatinine < 2.5 mg/dL. Recorded data included demographic characteristics, oBP, and ABPM and labroatory investigations. The 868 patients showed a mean recipient age of was 53.2 ± 11.6 years and mean follow-up after transplantation, 5.5 ± 2.8 years. Mean systolic and diastolic oBP were 140.2 ± 18 and 80.4 ± 10 mm Hg, respectively. Seventy-six percent of patients had oBP higher than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg. Mean 24 hour ABPM were 131.5 ± 14 and 77.4 ± 8.7 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively. Using the ABPM, we observed that 36.5% of subjects were controlled (mean 24-hour BP < 130/85 mm Hg). The two methods (oBP and ABPM) showed significant agreement. After ABPM, 65% of patients diagnosed as true controlled hypertension were considered to have white-coat RH. In clinical practice ABPM may help for better adjustment of drugs for adequate BP control.

Home blood pressure in children and adolescents: a comparison with office and ambulatory blood pressure measurements

AIM

To compare BP measurements of children and adolescents using different methods office BP (OBP), ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP measurement (HBPM) and to study their correlations.

METHOD

Individuals were evaluated between 5 and 15 years of age who had been referred because of a previous high BP. OBP was measured with the OMRON-705CP. Three measurements were carried out at 5-min intervals. HBPM were taken using the same device, two measurements at 5-min intervals in the morning and in the evening during 7 days. ABPM was performed using the SpaceLabs 90207 monitors.

RESULTS

A total of 109 children and adolescents were evaluated (9.82 ± 2.63 years), 52.3% boys, 56.9% non-white. The office systolic BP (SBP) was lower than in daytime ABPM (p < 0.001) but similar HBPM (p = 0.294), and the office diastolic BP (DBP) was lower than daytime ABPM (p < 0.001) and in HBPM (p = 0.035). The SBP and DBP at HBPM was lower than daytime ABPM (p < 0.001). Daytime ambulatory BP was more closely associated with home readings (SBP r = 0.731 and DBP r = 0.616) than with office's readings (SBP r = 0.653 and DBP r = 0.394).

CONCLUSION

The BP of children and adolescents varies depending on the place and manner of measurement. ABPM presents better correlation with HBPM than with the office measurements.

Sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of hypertension with different methods

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sensitivity and specificity of different protocols for blood pressure measurement for the diagnosis of hypertension in adults.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study conducted in a non-probabilistic sample of 250 public servants of both sexes aged 35 to 74 years in Vitória, southeastern Brazil, between 2008 and 2010. The participants had their blood pressure measured using three different methods: clinic measurement, self-measured and 24-hour ambulatory measurement. They were all interviewed to obtain sociodemographic information and had their anthropometric data (weight, height, waist circumference) collected. Clinic measurement and self-measured were analyzed against the gold standard ambulatory measurement. Measures of diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and positive and negative predictive values) were calculated. The Bland & Altman method was used to evaluate agreement between ambulatory measurement (standard deviation for daytime measurements) and self-measured (standard deviation of four measurements). A 5% significance level was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

Self-measured blood pressure showed higher sensitivity (S=84%, 95%CI 75;93) and overall accuracy (0.817, p<0.001) in the diagnosis of hypertension than clinic measurement (S=79%, 95%CI 73;86, and overall accuracy=0.815, p<0.001). Despite the strong correlation with daytime ambulatory measurement values (r=0.843, p<0.001), self-measured values did not show good agreement with daytime systolic ambulatory values (bias=5.82, 95%CI 4.49;7.15). Seven (2.8%) cases of white coat hypertension, 26 (10.4%) of masked hypertension and 46 (18.4%) of white-coat effect were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that self-measured blood pressure has higher sensitivity than clinic measurement to identify true hypertension. The negative predictive values found confirm the superiority of self-measured when compared to clinic in identifying truly normotensive individuals. However, clinic measurement cannot be replaced with self-measured, as it is still the most reliable method for the diagnosis of hypertension.

Magnitude of the white-coat effect in the community pharmacy setting: the MEPAFAR study

BACKGROUND

There is little information regarding the community pharmacy blood pressure (CPBP) measurement method and their differences with home (HBP) or ambulatory BP (ABP). The aim of this study was to measure such differences and their variation over successive visits.

METHOD

Cross-sectional study carried out in eight pharmacies in Gran Canaria (Spain). The study included 169 treated hypertensive patients. BP was measured at the pharmacy (four visits), at HBP (4 days) and 24-h ABP monitoring. We defined pharmacy white-coat effect (PWCE) as differences between CPBP and HBP (home PWCE) or daytime ABP (ambulatory PWCE).

RESULTS

The overall (pooled values for all visits) ambulatory PWCE was not significantly different from zero for systolic BP (SBP) (-0.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI): -1.8 to 1.1)), but greater than zero for diastolic BP (DBP) (3.4 mm Hg (95% CI: 2.3 to 4.6)). The overall home PWCE was not significantly different from zero, both for SBP (1.2 mm Hg (95% CI: -0.1 to 2.6)) and DBP (0.1 mm Hg (95% CI: -0.7 to 1.0)). The ambulatory and home PWCE on the first visit were greater than zero (P < 0.001) (SBP/DBP): 3.5/4.8 and 1.9/1.5 mm Hg, respectively; but showed important reductions at the second visit and became not significantly different from zero, except the ambulatory PWCE in DBP, which persisted until the last visit.

CONCLUSION

The trend in the PWCE decreased over the successive visits to the pharmacy. Only the ambulatory PWCE in DBP proved to be statistically greater than zero after the second visit. Repeated CPBP measurements could be a useful alternative to assess the response to antihypertensive treatment.

Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment.

DATA SOURCES

Medline (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medion, ARIF, and TRIP up to May 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible studies examined diagnosis of hypertension in adults of all ages using home and/or clinic blood pressure measurement compared with those made using ambulatory monitoring that clearly defined thresholds to diagnose hypertension.

RESULTS

The 20 eligible studies used various thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension, and only seven studies (clinic) and three studies (home) could be directly compared with ambulatory monitoring. Compared with ambulatory monitoring thresholds of 135/85 mm Hg, clinic measurements over 140/90 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 60.7% to 84.8%) and 74.6% (47.9% to 90.4%), respectively, whereas home measurements over 135/85 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% (78.0% to 91.0%) and 62.4% (48.0% to 75.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither clinic nor home measurement had sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be recommended as a single diagnostic test. If ambulatory monitoring is taken as the reference standard, then treatment decisions based on clinic or home blood pressure alone might result in substantial overdiagnosis. Ambulatory monitoring before the start of lifelong drug treatment might lead to more appropriate targeting of treatment, particularly around the diagnostic threshold.

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in kidney transplant recipients is more adequate to monitor BP than office BP

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is highly prevalent among kidney transplantation recipients and considered as an important cardiovascular risk factor influencing patient survival and kidney graft survival. Aim. Compare the blood pressure (BP) control in kidney transplant patients through the use of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is more comparable with the results of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring compared to the measurement of office blood pressure.

METHODS

From March 2008 to April 2009 prospectively were evaluated 183 kidney transplant recipients with time after transplantation between 1 and 10 years. Patients underwent three methods for measuring BP: office blood pressure measurement (oBP), HBPM and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM).

RESULTS

In total, 183 patients were evaluated, among them 94 were men (54%) and 89 women (46%). The average age was 50 ± 11 years. The average time of transplant was 57 ± 32 months. Ninety-nine patients received grafts from deceased donors (54%) and 84 were recipients of living donors (46%). When assessed using oBP, 56.3% presented with uncontrolled and 43.7% with adequate control of BP with an average of 138.9/82.3 ± 17.8/12.1 mmHg. However, when measured by HBPM, 55.2% of subjects were controlled and 44.8% presented with uncontrolled BP with an average of 131.1/78.5 ± 17.4/8.9 mmHg. Using the ABPM, we observed that 63.9% of subjects were controlled and 36.1% of patients presented uncontrolled BP with an average 128.8/80.5 ± 12.5/8.1 mmHg. We found that the two methods (oBP and HBPM) have a significant agreement, but the HBPM has a higher agreement that oBP, confirmed P = 0.026. We found that there is no symmetry in the data for both methods with McNemar test. The correlation index of Pearson linear methods for the ABPM with the other two methods were 0.494 for office measurement and 0.768 for HBPM, best value of HBPM with ABPM. Comparing the errors of the two methods by paired t-test, we obtained the descriptive level of 0.837. Looking at the receiver operating characteristic curve for BP measurements in each method, we observed that oBP is lower than those obtained by HBPM in relation to ABPM.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the results obtained with HBPM were closer to the ABPM results than those obtained with BP obtained at oBP, being more sensitive to detect poor control of hypertension in renal transplant recipients.

Home blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

It is recognized that for the reliable assessment of blood pressure (BP) and the accurate diagnosis of hypertension, out-of-office BP measurement with ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) is often required. The clinical usefulness of ABPM is well established. However, despite the wide use of HBPM, only in the last decade convincing evidence on its usefulness has accumulated.

METHODS

Systematic review of the evidence on applying HBPM in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (PubMed, Cochrane Library, 1970-2010).

RESULTS

Sixteen studies in untreated and treated subjects assessed the diagnostic ability of HBPM by taking ABPM as reference. Seven randomized studies compared HBPM vs. office measurements or ABPM for treatment adjustment, whereas many studies compared HBPM with office measurements in assessing the antihypertensive drug effects. Several studies with different design investigated the role of HBPM vs. office measurements in improving patients' compliance with treatment and hypertension control rates. The evidence on the cost-effectiveness of HBPM is limited. The studies reviewed consistently showed moderate diagnostic agreement between HBPM and ABPM, and superiority of HBPM compared to office measurements in diagnosing uncontrolled hypertension, assessing antihypertensive drug effects and improving patients' compliance and hypertension control. Preliminary evidence suggests that HBPM has the potential for cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

There is conclusive evidence that HBPM is useful for the initial diagnosis and the long-term follow-up of treated hypertension. These data are useful for the optimal application of HBPM, which is widely used in clinical practice. More studies on the cost-effectiveness of HBPM are needed.

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.

Preventing misdiagnosis of ambulatory hypertension: algorithm using office and home blood pressures

OBJECTIVES

An algorithm for making a differential diagnosis between sustained and white coat hypertension (WCH) has been proposed - patients with office hypertension undergo home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and those with normal HBP levels undergo ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). We tested whether incorporating an upper office blood pressure (OBP) cut-off in the algorithm, higher than the traditional 140/90 mmHg, reduces the need for HBPM and ABPM.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-nine normotensive and untreated mildly hypertensive participants (mean age 52.5 +/- 14.6 years, 54% female participants) underwent OBP measurements, HBPM, and 24-h ABPM. Using the algorithm, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for sustained hypertension and WCH were assessed. We then modified the algorithm utilizing a systolic and diastolic OBP cut-off at a specificity of 95% for ambulatory hypertension - those with office hypertension but OBP levels below the upper cut-off underwent HBPM and subsequent ABPM, if appropriate.

RESULTS

Using the original algorithm, sensitivity and PPV for sustained hypertension were 100% and 93.8%, respectively. Despite a specificity of 44.4%, NPV was 100%. These values correspond to specificity, NPV, sensitivity, and PPV for WCH, respectively. Using the modified algorithm, the diagnostic accuracy for sustained hypertension and WCH did not change. However, far fewer participants needed HBPM (29 vs. 84) and ABPM (8 vs. 15).

CONCLUSION

In this sample, the original and modified algorithms are excellent at diagnosing sustained hypertension and WCH. However, the latter requires far fewer participants to undergo HBPM and ABPM. These findings have important implications for the cost-effective diagnosis of sustained hypertension and WCH.

Role of ambulatory and home blood pressure recording in clinical practice

Because of shortcomings of the office blood pressure (BP) measurement in individuals with hypertension (eg, white coat and masked hypertension effects, terminal digit bias, and large variability in BP among a small number of readings), use of out-of-office blood pressure measurements has become more common in clinical practice. The presence of the syndromes of white-coat and masked hypertension creates the concern that the office BP measurements are not reflective of an individual patient's true BP values. Home (or self) and ambulatory BP assessments have been used in numerous types of clinical trials and have demonstrated their usefulness as reliable research and clinical tools. In this article, we review the recent literature on the benefits and limitations of home (self) and ambulatory monitoring of the BP in clinical practice. In particular, how it relates to the diagnosis of patients with various presentations of hypertension and to cardio-vascular outcomes with long-term follow-ups of population cohorts.

Are there really differences between home and daytime ambulatory blood pressure? Comparison using a novel dual-mode ambulatory and home monitor

Several studies compared blood pressure (BP) at home (HBP) with ambulatory BP (ABP), but using different devices, which contribute to differences in measured BP. A novel dual-mode device allowing ABP and HBP monitoring (Microlife WatchBPO3) was validated according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol and used to compare the two methods. In the validation study, 33 subjects were assessed with simultaneous BP measurements taken by 2 observers (connected mercury sphygmomanometers) 4 times, sequentially with 3 measurements taken using the tested device. Absolute observer-device BP differences were classified within 5/10/15 mm Hg zones. Measurements with <or=5 mm Hg difference were calculated per participant. In the validation study, the device produced 70/89/96 measurements within 5/10/15 mm Hg, respectively, for systolic BP and 67/95/99 for diastolic BP. Twenty-eight subjects had at least two of their systolic BP differences <or=5 mm Hg and one subject had no difference <or=5 mm Hg, whereas for diastolic BP, it was 22 and 1 subjects, respectively. Mean device-observers BP difference was -0.3+/-5.6/-2.4+/-4.8 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic). In the application study, the difference between daytime ABP and HBP was 0.5+/-7.9 mm Hg for systolic BP (mean+/-standard deviation, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.9, 2.9, P=NS) and 0.6+/-5.5 for diastolic BP (95% CI -1.1, 2.3, P=NS). In conclusion, the Microlife WatchBPO3 device for ABP and HBP monitoring fulfils the International Protocol validation criteria. Using this device, no clinically important difference between daytime ABP and HBP was detected. These data justify the use of the same diagnostic threshold for both methods.

Interest of home blood pressure measurements (HBPM) to establish degree of hypertensive control

AIMS

To establish the validity and clinical value of home blood pressure measurements (HBPM) in the treatment follow-up of patients with essential hypertension to rule out or to confirm poor control of blood pressure obtained in the doctor's office with a mercury sphygmomanometer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Observational, cross-sectional study was carried out to validate HBPM in treated hypertensive patients poorly controlled by office-based casual blood pressure measurements. Measurements were made on 2 consecutive days with six readings taken per day. To do this, 2 x 2 tables were drawn up to validate the HBPM using ABPM as the reference method. Sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive probability quotient (+PQ) and negative probability quotient (-PQ) were calculated. The study population (n = 149) was selected by consecutive sampling of the hypertensive patients seen in the Vallada Health Centre. Only 124 patients could be evaluated.

RESULTS

Values obtained with HBPM were: S 97.3% (95% CI 90.4-99.7%), Sp 62.7% (48.1-75.9%), +PQ 2.61 (1.82-3.73) and -PQ 0.04 (0.01-0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Home monitoring of blood pressure is a useful alternative to ABPM to rule out office-based poor control of hypertensive patients, but not to confirm it.

Assessment of self‐monitoring of blood pressure in the diagnosis of isolated clinic hypertension

BACKGROUND

There are no studies assessing cardiovascular morbidity, morality in patients with isolated clinical hypertension (ICH) with self-blood pressure monitoring (SBPM).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the value of SBPM in the diagnosis of ICH.

METHODS

Cohort study. New hypertensive and normotensive patients 15-75 years, without cardiovascular events history.

VARIABLES

Oriented anamnesis hypertension; blood pressure measurements (BP): clinical BP, SBPM and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM); evaluation of target organ damage (TOD); electrocardiogram; retinography and microalbuminuria (MA).

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-five patients, 95 hypertensive (62.1% males; mean age 59.08+/-16.8 years), 40 normotensive (37.5% males; mean are 56.32+/-10.22 years). BP measurements (mmHG) in normotensives vs hypertensives: clinical BP, 125.36/76.74 vs 149.81/87.86 mmHg (p<0.0001) and SPPM, 114.90/69.96 vs 142.06/86.31 (p<0.0001). Twenty-four-hour ABPM: 135.41/81/81.74. Prevalence of TOD in hypertensive: 23.10% left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), sustained hypertension (SH): clinic BP, 149.88/86.34 vs 152.51/89.55 (p>0.10); SBPM: 147.895/88.95 vs 128.17/79 (p<0.0001) and ABPM, 141.72/88.22 vs 131.66/80 (p=0.053 for systolic). TOD in SH vs ICH: LVH, 24.6% vs 19.2% (p=0.814); exudates or haemorrhages, 7.7% vs 9.8% (p=0.580). The risk of an occurrence of any TOD in ICH patients is lower for 125/80 (OR=2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

VAMPAHICA will provide information about value SBPM in the diagnosis of ICH. Advanced retinopathy is relative frequent in ICH patients. If TOD is accepted as a surrogate endpoint, the diagnostic values of ICH will be probably decreased.