| 1. |
- Asayama, Kei, et al.
(författare)
-
Setting Thresholds to Varying Blood Pressure Monitoring Intervals Differentially Affects Risk Estimates Associated With White-Coat and Masked Hypertension in the Population
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Hypertension. - 0194-911X .- 1524-4563. ; 64:5, s. 935-942
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Outcome-driven recommendations about time intervals during which ambulatory blood pressure should be measured to diagnose white-coat or masked hypertension are lacking. We cross-classified 8237 untreated participants (mean age, 50.7 years; 48.4% women) enrolled in 12 population studies, using >= 140/>= 90, >= 130/>= 80, >= 135/>= 85, and >= 120/>= 70 mm Hg as hypertension thresholds for conventional, 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime blood pressure. White-coat hypertension was hypertension on conventional measurement with ambulatory normotension, the opposite condition being masked hypertension. Intervals used for classification of participants were daytime, nighttime, and 24 hours, first considered separately, and next combined as 24 hours plus daytime or plus nighttime, or plus both. Depending on time intervals chosen, white-coat and masked hypertension frequencies ranged from 6.3% to 12.5% and from 9.7% to 19.6%, respectively. During 91 046 person-years, 729 participants experienced a cardiovascular event. In multivariable analyses with normotension during all intervals of the day as reference, hazard ratios associated with white-coat hypertension progressively weakened considering daytime only (1.38; P=0.033), nighttime only (1.43; P=0.0074), 24 hours only (1.21; P=0.20), 24 hours plus daytime (1.24; P=0.18), 24 hours plus nighttime (1.15; P=0.39), and 24 hours plus daytime and nighttime (1.16; P=0.41). The hazard ratios comparing masked hypertension with normotension were all significant (P<0.0001), ranging from 1.76 to 2.03. In conclusion, identification of truly low-risk white-coat hypertension requires setting thresholds simultaneously to 24 hours, daytime, and nighttime blood pressure. Although any time interval suffices to diagnose masked hypertension, as proposed in current guidelines, full 24-hour recordings remain standard in clinical practice.
|
|
| 2. |
- Franklin, Stanley S., et al.
(författare)
-
Masked Hypertension in Diabetes Mellitus Treatment Implications for Clinical Practice
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Hypertension. - 0194-911X .- 1524-4563. ; 61:5, s. 964-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although distinguishing features of masked hypertension in diabetics are well known, the significance of antihypertensive treatment on clinical practice decisions has not been fully explored. We analyzed 9691 subjects from the population-based 11-country International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes. Prevalence of masked hypertension in untreated normotensive participants was higher (P<0.0001) among 229 diabetics (29.3%, n=67) than among 5486 nondiabetics (18.8%, n=1031). Over a median of 11.0 years of follow-up, the adjusted risk for a composite cardiovascular end point in untreated diabetic-masked hypertensives tended to be higher than in normotensives (hazard rate [HR], 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-3.97; P=0.059), similar to untreated stage 1 hypertensives (HR, 1.07; CI, 0.58-1.98; P=0.82), but less than stage 2 hypertensives (HR, 0.53; CI, 0.29-0.99; P=0.048). In contrast, cardiovascular risk was not significantly different in antihypertensive-treated diabetic-masked hypertensives, as compared with the normotensive comparator group (HR, 1.13; CI, 0.54-2.35; P=0.75), stage 1 hypertensives (HR, 0.91; CI, 0.49-1.69; P=0.76), and stage 2 hypertensives (HR, 0.65; CI, 0.35-1.20; P=0.17). In the untreated diabetic-masked hypertensive population, mean conventional systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 129.2 +/- 8.0/76.0 +/- 7.3 mm Hg, and mean daytime systolic/diastolic blood pressure 141.5 +/- 9.1/83.7 +/- 6.5 mm Hg. In conclusion, masked hypertension occurred in 29% of untreated diabetics, had comparable cardiovascular risk as stage 1 hypertension, and would require considerable reduction in conventional blood pressure to reach daytime ambulatory treatment goal. Importantly, many hypertensive diabetics when receiving antihypertensive therapy can present with normalized conventional and elevated ambulatory blood pressure that mimics masked hypertension.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Franklin, Stanley S., et al.
(författare)
-
The Cardiovascular Risk of White-Coat Hypertension
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 68:19, s. 2033-2043
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND The role of white-coat hypertension (WCH) and the white-coat-effect (WCE) in development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVES Using data from the population-based, 11-cohort IDACO (International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes), this study compared daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring with conventional blood pressure measurements in 653 untreated subjects with WCH and 653 normotensive control subjects. METHODS European Society Hypertension guidelines were used as a 5-stage risk score. Low risk was defined as 0 to 2 risk factors, and high risk was defined as >= 3 to 5 risk factors, diabetes, and/or history of prior CVD events. Age-and cohort-matching was done between 653 untreated subjects with WCH and 653 normotensive control subjects. RESULTS In a stepwise linear regression model, systolic WCE increased by 3.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1 to 4.6 mm Hg) per 10-year increase in age, and was similar in low-and high-risk subjects with or without prior CVD events. Over a median 10.6-year follow-up, incidence of new CVD events was higher in 159 high-risk subjects with WCH compared with 159 cohort-and age-matched high-risk normotensive subjects (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.10 to 3.84; p = 0.023). The HR was not significant for 494 participants with low-risk WCH and age-matched low-risk normotensive subjects. Subgroup analysis by age showed that an association between WCH and incident CVD events is limited to older (age >= 60 years) high-risk WCH subjects; the adjusted HR was 2.19 (95% CI: 1.09 to 4.37; p = 0.027) in the older high-risk group and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.53; p = 0.66) in the older low-risk group (p for interaction = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS WCE size is related to aging, not to CVD risk. CVD risk in most persons with WCH is comparable to age-and risk-adjusted normotensive control subjects.
|
|
| 5. |
- Franklin, Stanley S., et al.
(författare)
-
Significance of White-Coat Hypertension in Older Persons With Isolated Systolic Hypertension : A Meta-Analysis Using the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes Population
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Hypertension. - 0194-911X .- 1524-4563. ; 59:3, s. 564-571
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The significance of white-coat hypertension in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension remains poorly understood. We analyzed subjects from the population-based 11-country International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes database who had daytime ambulatory blood pressure (BP; ABP) and conventional BP (CBP) measurements. After excluding persons with diastolic hypertension by CBP (>= 90 mm Hg) or by daytime ABP (>= 85 mm Hg), a history of cardiovascular disease, and persons<18 years of age, the present analysis totaled 7295 persons, of whom 1593 had isolated systolic hypertension. During a median follow-up of 10.6 years, there was a total of 655 fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The analyses were stratified by treatment status. In untreated subjects, those with white-coat hypertension (CBP >= 140/<90 mm Hg and ABP<135/<85 mm Hg) and subjects with normal BP (CBP<140/<90 mm Hg and ABP<135/<85 mm Hg) were at similar risk (adjusted hazard rate: 1.17 [95% CI: 0.87-1.57]; P=0.29). Furthermore, in treated subjects with isolated systolic hypertension, the cardiovascular risk was similar in elevated conventional and normal daytime systolic BP as compared with those with normal conventional and normal daytime BPs (adjusted hazard rate: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.79-1.53]; P = 0.57). However, both treated isolated systolic hypertension subjects with white-coat hypertension (adjusted hazard rate: 2.00; [95% CI: 1.43-2.79]; P<0.0001) and treated subjects with normal BP (adjusted hazard rate: 1.98 [95% CI: 1.49-2.62]; P<0.0001) were at higher risk as compared with untreated normotensive subjects. In conclusion, subjects with sustained hypertension who have their ABP normalized on antihypertensive therapy but with residual white-coat effect by CBP measurement have an entity that we have termed, "treated normalized hypertension." Therefore, one should be cautious in applying the term "white-coat hypertension" to persons receiving antihypertensive treatment.
|
|
