Phenotypes of masked hypertension: Isolated ambulatory, isolated home and dual masked hypertension

Diagnostic Accuracy of Office Blood Pressure Measurement and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring for Hypertension Screening Among Adults: Results From the IDH Study

BACKGROUND

Using high awake blood pressure (BP; ≥130/80 mm Hg) on ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) as a reference, the purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of high office BP (≥130/80 mm Hg) at an initial visit and high confirmatory office BP (≥130/80 mm Hg), and separately, high home BP (≥130/80 mm Hg) among participants with high office BP (≥130/80 mm Hg) at an initial office visit.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The accuracy of office BP measurements using the oscillometric method for detecting high BP on ABPM was determined among 379 participants with complete office BP and ABPM data in the IDH (Improving the Detection of Hypertension) study. For detecting high BP on ABPM, the accuracy of high confirmatory office BP using the oscillometric method and, separately, high home BP was also determined among the subgroup of 122 participants with high office BP at an initial visit and complete home BP monitoring data. High office BP had moderate sensitivity (0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.68]) and high specificity (0.85 [95% CI, 0.80-0.90]) for high awake BP. High confirmatory office BP and high home BP had moderate sensitivity (0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.79] and 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71-0.87], respectively) and low and moderate specificity (0.44 [95% CI, 0.27-0.61] and 0.72 [95% CI, 0.56-0.88], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Many individuals with high BP on ABPM do not have high office BP. Confirmatory office BP and home blood pressure monitoring also had limited ability to identify individuals with high BP on ABPM.

Masked hypertension in a middle-aged population and its relation to manifestations of vascular disease

BACKGROUND

Masked hypertension is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, previous large studies have not used the same device to measure office and home blood pressure (BP) and adhered to current home BP measurement recommendations of the European Society of Hypertension. We aimed to characterize masked hypertension and explore its relation to manifestations of CVD.

METHODS

A randomly selected cohort of 5057 participants aged 50-64 years from the Swedish CardioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS) was evaluated with office and home BP using the semi-automatic Omron M10-IT oscillometric device. Additional analyses included pulse wave velocity (PWV) and coronary artery calcium score (CACS).

RESULTS

Of participants, 4122 did not have current antihypertensive treatment, and were thus included in our analyses. Of these, 2634 (63.9%) had sustained normotension, and 172 (4.2%) had masked hypertension. Participants with masked hypertension vs. sustained normotension were more often men (66.9 vs. 46.2%, P  < 0.001). Those with masked hypertension had higher mean PWV [9.3 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 9.1-9.5) vs. 8.3 (95% CI 8.2-8.4) m/s, P  < 0.001] and odds ratio for CACS at least 100 [1.65 (95% CI 1.02-2.68), P  = 0.040]. These associations were similar in a posthoc analysis of masked hypertension and sustained normotension, matched for age, sex and systolic office BP.

CONCLUSION

Masked hypertension was associated with markers of CVD. This suggests that home BP is a better predictor of risk, even when the recordings are performed with the same measurement device, in a population-based setting with randomized recruitment.

Accuracy of screening strategies for masked hypertension: a large-scale nationwide study based on home blood pressure monitoring

This study compared the ability of guideline-proposed office blood pressure (OBP) screening thresholds [European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines: 130/85 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines: 120/75 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg] and novel screening scores to identify normotensive individuals at high risk of having masked hypertension (MH) in an office setting. We cross-sectionally evaluated untreated participants with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg (n = 22,266) and an OBP < 130/80 mmHg (n = 10,005) who underwent home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) (derivation cohort) from 686 Brazilian sites. MH was defined according to criteria suggested by the ESH (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 135/85 mmHg), Brazilian Society of Cardiology (BSC) (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg) and ACC/AHA (OBP < 130/80 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg). Scores were generated from multivariable logistic regression coefficients between MH and clinical variables (OBP, age, sex, and BMI). Considering the ESH, BSC, and ACC/AHA criteria, 17.2%, 38.5%, and 21.2% of the participants had MH, respectively. Guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds yielded area under curve (AUC) values of 0.640 (for ESH criteria), 0.641 (for BSC criteria), and 0.619 (for ACC/AHA criteria) for predicting MH, while scores presented as continuous variables or quartiles yielded AUC values of 0.700 and 0.688 (for ESH criteria), 0.720 and 0.709 (for BSC criteria), and 0.671 and 0.661 (for ACC/AHA criteria), respectively. Further analyses performed with alternative untreated participants (validation cohort; n = 2807 with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; n = 1269 with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg) yielded similar AUC values. In conclusion, the accuracy of guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds in identifying individuals at high risk of having MH in an office setting is limited and is inferior to that yielded by scores derived from simple clinical variables.

Diagnostic agreement of masked uncontrolled hypertension detected by ambulatory blood pressure and home blood pressure measured by an all-in-one BP monitoring device: The HI-JAMP study

Masked hypertension is defined by office blood pressure (BP) in the controlled-BP range while out-of-office BP measured by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM) is in the uncontrolled range. However, diagnosis of masked hypertension may differ if assessed by different out-of-office BP indices. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic agreement of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUHT) detected by ABPM indices (ABPM-MUHT) and HBPM indices (HBPM-MUHT) using the same all-in-one device (TM2441; A&D Company). The present study enrolled a total of 2322 treated hypertensive patients (males 53.2%, average age 69.2 ± 11.5 years) from the Home-Activity ICT-based Japan Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Prospective (HI-JAMP) Study, who consecutively underwent office BP monitoring, 24-h ABPM (at 30-min intervals), and 5-day HBPM (twice each morning and evening) using the same device. When out-of-office BP control status was assessed only by 24-h average SBP or by the average of morning and evening SBP, the diagnostic agreement of MUHT detected by ABPM and HBPM was 29.7% among the 445 patients with any type of MUHT. When out-of-office BP indices in each time-window were simultaneously assessed, the diagnostic agreement increased to 40-45.7%. Our results indicated the importance of assessing BPs at various times of day, especially morning hours, for perfect hypertension management. Diagnosis of masked hypertension only by an averaged BP index, without considering specific time-windows, might underestimate cardiovascular risk.

Home blood pressure monitoring schedule: optimal and minimum based on 2122 individual participants' data

OBJECTIVES

Home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring has become a primary method for hypertension diagnosis and management. This analysis aimed to investigate the optimal and minimum schedule for HBP monitoring.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of cross-sectional data was performed, which involved HBP and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring in adults performed within the context of clinical studies in Finland, Greece and UK. Participants with six to seven HBP monitoring days and at least 12 HBP readings were included. The stability of HBP was assessed by evaluating the average value of an increasing number of readings and its variability (SD). Its association with awake ABP was also assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 2122 participants were analysed (mean age 53.9 ± 11.3 years, males 53%, treated 34%). A progressive HBP decline was observed in succeeding days, reaching a plateau after day 3. Day 1 HBP was higher than in the next days by about 2.8/1.4 mmHg (systolic/diastolic, P < 0.001). In a 3-day HBP monitoring schedule, the exclusion of day 1 reduced average HBP and SD, with a clinically important HBP decline in 115 participants (5%) and different hypertension diagnosis in 120 participants (6%). For schedules including more than three HBP monitoring days, the exclusion of day 1 had negligible impact. The 3-day average HBP was strongly correlated with awake ABP, with a little improvement thereafter.

CONCLUSION

These data support the recommendation for 7 days of HBP monitoring with a minimum of 3 days. Readings of the first day should be discarded, particularly when the minimum 3-day monitoring schedule is obtained (average readings of second and third day).

Blood pressure and its variability: classic and novel measurement techniques

Current hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of several blood pressure (BP) readings obtained both in and out of the office for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. In-office BP measurement using an upper-arm cuff constitutes the evidence-based reference method for current BP classification and treatment targets. However, out-of-office BP evaluation using 24 h ambulatory or home BP monitoring is recommended by all major medical associations for obtaining further insights into the BP profile of an individual and how it relates to their daily activities. Importantly, the highly variable nature of office and out-of-office BP readings has been widely acknowledged, including the association of BP variability with cardiovascular outcomes. However, to date, the implications of BP variability on cardiovascular outcomes have largely been ignored, with limited application in clinical practice. Novel cuffless wearable technologies might provide a detailed assessment of the 24 h BP profile and behaviour over weeks or months. These devices offer many advantages for researchers and patients compared with traditional BP monitors, but their accuracy and utility remain uncertain. In this Review, we outline and compare conventional and novel methods and techniques for assessing average BP levels and BP variability, and reflect on the utility and potential of these methods for improving the treatment and management of patients with hypertension.

The most commonly available blood pressure (BP) monitoring devices are useful for capturing a snapshot BP value, but most have limited utility in measuring BP variability. In this Review, Schutte and colleagues outline the advantages and disadvantages of conventional and novel techniques to measure average BP levels and BP variability.

Although the dynamic nature of blood pressure (BP) is well-known, hypertension guidelines recommend using the average values of static BP readings (office or out-of-office), specifically aiming to level the fluctuations and peaks in BP readings.

All current BP measurement methods have imperfect reproducibility owing to the continuous fluctuation in BP readings, making it difficult to accurately diagnose hypertension.

Accumulating evidence from clinical trials, large registries and meta-analyses shows that increased BP variability predicts cardiovascular outcome, independently of the average BP values.

To date, BP variability is overlooked, with limited application in clinical practice, probably owing to a variety of complex non-standardized BP variability assessment methods and indices, and uncertain thresholds and clinical usefulness.

Novel cuffless wearable BP technologies can provide very large numbers of readings for days and months without the discomfort of traditional BP monitoring devices, and have the potential to replace current BP methods, once accuracy issues are resolved and their clinical usefulness is proved.

Home blood pressure monitoring: methodology, clinical relevance and practical application: a 2021 position paper by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability of the European Society of Hypertension

The present paper provides an update of previous recommendations on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring from the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability sequentially published in years 2000, 2008 and 2010. This update has taken into account new evidence in this field, including a recent statement by the American Heart association, as well as technological developments, which have occurred over the past 20 years. The present document has been developed by the same ESH Working Group with inputs from an international team of experts, and has been endorsed by the ESH.

Contribution of single office aortic systolic blood pressure measurements to the detection of masked hypertension: data from two separate cohorts

Masked hypertension (MH) and masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUH) remain largely underdiagnosed with no efficient detection algorithm. We recently proposed a novel classification of office systolic hypertension phenotypes defined on the basis of both brachial and aortic systolic blood pressure (bSBP/aSBP) and showed that type III ("isolated high office aSBP" phenotype: normal office bSBP but high office aSBP) has higher hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD). We tested whether MH/MUH (1) can be detected with the "isolated high office aSBP" phenotype and (2) if it is associated with elevated office aSBP with respect to normotension. We classified two separate and quite different cohorts (n = 391 and 956, respectively) on the basis of both bSBP and aSBP into four different phenotypes. Participants were classified as sustained hypertensives, masked hypertensives/masked uncontrolled hypertensives (MHs/MUHs), white coat hypertensives, and normotensives according to their office and out-of-office BP readings. The majority (more than 60% in cohort A and more than 50% in cohort B) of type III individuals were MHs/MUHs. Almost 35% of MHs/MUHs had optimal office bSBP rather than high normal bSBP. In both cohorts, the detection of more than 40% of MH/MUH was feasible with the type III phenotype. MHs/MUHs had higher office aSBP than individuals with sustained normotension (p < 0.05). In conclusion, in the absence of an efficient screening test, the diagnosis of MH/MUH can be assisted by the detection of the "isolated high office aSBP" phenotype, which can be measured in a single office visit. MHs/MUHs have increased aSBP relative to normotensives, further explaining the increased mortality of MH/MUH.

Left ventricular hypertrophy in isolated and dual masked hypertension

Masked hypertension (MH) is defined as normal office blood pressure (BP) and elevated ambulatory BP (ABP) or home BP or both. This study assessed the association of MH (ie, isolated home, isolated ABP and dual MH) with echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). The present analysis of the PAMELA study included 1087 untreated and treated participants with normal office BP and a measurable LV mass (LVM). A total of 193 individuals (17.7%) had any MH (ie, normal office BP, elevated ABP or home BP or both), 48 had dual MH (25%), 62 isolated ambulatory MH (32%), and 83 isolated home MH (43%). Average LVM indexed to body surface area was superimposable in the three MH phenotypes (being the largest difference between groups <3 g/m² ) and significantly higher than in true normotensives. This was also for the LVH prevalence that varied across the MH subgroups in a narrow range (from 8.3% to 10.8%). In conclusion, individuals from the general population with isolated MH, in which either home or ABP was elevated, exhibited an increased risk of LVH similar to that entailed by dual MH. Our findings add the notion both home and ABP measurements are useful to more accurately assess the risk of LVH associated with MH in the community.