Unattended automated office vs. ambulatory blood pressure in people with high cardiovascular risk: implications for understanding the SPRINT results

Do recent meta-analyses truly prove that treatment with blood pressure-lowering drugs is beneficial at any blood pressure value, no matter how low? A critical review

Current European guidelines for the management of hypertension and on cardiovascular disease prevention place the threshold for pharmacological treatment at a SBP level of 140 mmHg or above, with the exception of patients at very high risk (mainly because of coronary heart disease). This is in agreement with the current definition of hypertension, that is, the level of blood pressure at which the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks of treatment, as documented by clinical trials. This rationale and definition was recently challenged by meta-analyses using individual participant-level data from 48 randomized trials by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC). The authors calculated for a fixed 5 mmHg pharmacological reduction of SBP an overall 10% risk reduction for major cardiovascular events. It was concluded that there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects by baseline SBP categories; that the effect was independent from the presence of cardiovascular disease; applied also to old and very old individuals up to 84 years or beyond; and that BP-lowering was also beneficial in individuals with normal or high-normal SBP down to a baseline SBP less than 120 mmHg. In this report, we identify and discuss a number of shortcomings of the BPLTTC meta-analyses. In our view, the conclusions by the BPLTTC must be - together with accompanying suggestions to abandon the definition of hypertension - strongly rejected as they are not justified and may be harmful for cardiovascular health in individuals without hypertension.

Unattended compared to traditional blood pressure measurement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised cross-over study

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is characterised by a high prevalence, low awareness and poor control among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Correct blood pressure (BP) measurement is highly important in these subjects. The "unattended" BP measurement aims to reduce the "white-coat effect," a phenomenon associated with cardiovascular risk. Data on "unattended" BP measurement in RA and its impact on hypertensive organ damage are very limited.

METHODS

BP was measured in the same patient both traditionally ("attended" BP) and by the "unattended" protocol (3 automated office BP measurements, at 1-min intervals, after 5 min of rest, with patient left alone) by a randomised cross-over design. Patients underwent clinical examination, 12-lead electrocardiography and trans-thoracic echocardiography to evaluate cardiac damage.

RESULTS

Sixty-two RA patients (mean age 67 ± 9 years, 87% women) were enrolled. Hypertension was diagnosed in 79% and 66% of patients according to ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH criteria, respectively. Concordance correlation coefficients between the two techniques were 0.55 (95%, CI 0.38-0.68) for systolic BP and 0.73 (95%, CI 0.60-0.82) for diastolic BP. "Unattended" (121.7/68.6 mmHg) was lower than "attended" BP (130.5/72.8 mmHg) for systolic and diastolic BP (both p < .0001). Among the two techniques, only "unattended" systolic BP showed a significant association with left ventricular mass (r = 0.11; p = .40 for "attended" BP; r = 0.27; p = .036 for unattended BP; difference between slopes: z = 3.92; p = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In RA patients, "unattended" BP is lower than traditional ("attended") BP and more closely associated with LV mass. In these patients, the "unattended" automated BP measurement is a promising tool which requires further evaluation.KEY MESSAGES"Unattended" automated blood pressure registration, aimed to reduce the "white-coat effect" is lower than "attended" value in rheumatoid arthritis patients."Unattended" blood pressure is more closely associated with left ventricular mass than "attende" registration.

Are Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings More Variable Than Home Readings?

A recent report from the American Heart Association stated that automated office blood pressure (AOBP) is preferred for evaluating office blood pressure (BP) because it is more accurate and devoid of white coat effect, which is mostly caused by higher systolic BP readings. However, AOBP has been criticized for being too variable to be used for identifying patients with possible hypertension. We, therefore, compared AOBP with home BP monitoring (HBPM) with respect to variability as determined by their relationship with the gold standard for determining BP status, awake ambulatory BP (ABP). The main focus was on systolic BP. Data on AOBP, HBPM, and awake ABP were collected on 300 patients referred from the community for 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. The SD of the difference between mean systolic awake ABP (136.4±11.5) and AOBP (131.2±15.7) was 13.6 mm Hg compared with 13.1 for the SD of the difference ( P =0.52) between the systolic awake ABP and the HBPM (136.7±16.1). Coefficients of correlation were slightly lower for systolic awake ABP versus AOBP ( r =0.54) compared with HBPM ( r =0.60). Coefficients of variation for AOBP (12.0%) and HBPM (11.8%) and variances between AOBP and HBPM were similar. Of the 139 patients with hypertension as defined by a manual office systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg, variability in BP readings as determined by the SDs of the mean difference versus awake ABP were similar ( P =0.56) for AOBP (14.6) and HBPM (13.9). Overall, both systolic AOBP and HBPM exhibited a similar degree of variability as assessed by the various methods.

The Impact of Measurement Methods on Office Blood Pressure and Management of Hypertension in General Practice

INTRODUCTION

The use of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAutoOBP) versus attended automated (aAutoOBP) and manual auscultatory office blood pressure (AuscOBP) measurements is a topic of current controversy.

AIM

To evaluate the differences between OBP measurements methods in the general practice (GP) setting.

METHODS

We first compared aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP in 42 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 1). Secondly, we compared AuscOBP to uAutoOBP measurements in 133 consecutive patients with hypertension (group 2). In addition, we analyzed the achieved OBP targets as recommended in the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines in group 2.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in group 1 was 71 years (range 34-89 years, 54.8% females). The aAutoOBP and uAutoOBP systolic (131.7 and 131.6 mmHg) and diastolic (83.4 and 82.4 mmHg) mean values were not significantly different. The patient characteristics in group 2 were similar to group 1. We observed a significant difference between AuscOBP and uAutoOBP measurement for both systolic (149.4 versus 129.5 mm Hg) and diastolic (85.4 versus 81.6 mm Hg, p < 0.0001, respectively). Accordingly, 20.3% and 45.9% of patients reached the overall 2018 ESC/ESH systolic and diastolic OBP targets of < 140/80 mmHg according to AuscOBP and uAutoOBP (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The attended versus unattended status of automated OBP measurements had no impact on OBP values in GP. However, significantly higher OBP values and lower rates of achieved target OBP were observed by using AuscOBP measurements by physicians in comparison to automated OBP recordings.

Antihypertensive Treatment in Diabetic Kidney Disease: The Need for a Patient-Centered Approach

Diabetic kidney disease affects up to forty percent of patients with diabetes during their lifespan. Prevention and treatment of diabetic kidney disease is currently based on optimal glucose and blood pressure control. Renin–angiotensin aldosterone inhibitors are considered the mainstay treatment for hypertension in diabetic patients, especially in the presence of albuminuria. Whether strict blood pressure reduction entails a favorable renal outcome also in non-albuminuric patients is at present unclear. Results of several clinical trials suggest that an overly aggressive blood pressure reduction, especially in the context of profound pharmacologic inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system may result in a paradoxical worsening of renal function. On the basis of this evidence, it is proposed that blood pressure reduction should be tailored in each individual patient according to renal phenotype.

Determination of optimal on-treatment diastolic blood pressure range using automated measurements in subjects with cardiovascular disease-Analysis of a SPRINT trial subpopulation

Automated office blood pressure measurement (AOBPM) is recommended for diagnosing hypertension; however, optimal treatment targets using this method are not established. Discrepancies between automated and office measurements of blood pressure have been described, producing uncertainty regarding the use of AOBPM in clinical practice. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results improved our understanding of target AOBPM systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels; however, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) targets remain unknown. Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal on-treatment DBP range. The analysis was performed on the participants of the SPRINT trial who had hypertension and prior cardiovascular disease. We analyzed the data of 1470 participants (mean age 70.3 ± 9.3 years, 24.1% female) selected from the SPRINT trial database of National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. The mean achieved SBP and DBP were 127.9 ± 10.7 and 68.3 ± 9.4 mm Hg, respectively. Most of the participants (57.4%) had a DBP lower than 70 mm Hg, while only 11.7% had DPB ≥80 mm Hg. Clinical composite endpoint was defined as myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome not resulting in myocardial infarction, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes. There were 159 (10.8%) clinical endpoint events. The participants with on-treatment AOBPM DBP range of 68.6-78.6 mm Hg showed the lowest hazard risk of a clinical composite endpoint. These results correspond to the office DBP range of 70-80 mm Hg recommended in ESC guidelines. This is the first attempt to determine the range of optimal DBP values using population-based AOBPM in patients with prior cardiovascular disease.