Prevalence Of Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension Research Articles

PREVALENCE OF MASKED UNCONTROLLED HYPERTENSION IN TREATED HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS

Objective: There are limited data in Tunisia on the quality of treated blood pressure (BP) control, and in particular, masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) in treated hypertensive patients defined as controlled office BP but uncontrolled out-of-clinic BP. The objective of the study is to define the prevalence of MUCH in treated hypertensive patients. Design and method: An analytical cross-sectional study including 84 treated hypertensive patients aged > 18 years, followed at the outpatient cardiology clinic of the Mohamed Taher Maamouri university hospital in Nabeul over a six months period (July-December 2021). The BP measurement in the office was performed on the day of inclusion. Patients were asked to measure BP at home as instructed by the physician using validated blood pressure self-measurement devices ( MICROLIFE BP A3 PLUS, MICROLIFE BP A2 Basic and Beurer BM 40 ). These devices were loaned to the patient who had to return them on the day of the ABPM installation. Laying of ABPM was performed immediately after the HBPM using a Bravo Mini validated device from Sun Tech Medical. The comparisons of percentages were carried out by the Chi-square test. Results: The mean age of our population was 59.37±13.10 years (range 21-92 years), composed of 43 women and 41 men. The prevalence of MUCH was 6% in HBPM and 8.3% in ABPM. The difference between these two methods was not statistically significant for the detection of masked uncontrolled hypertension (p = 0.320). The prevalence of MUCH was higher in women detected by HBPM (11.6% versus 0%; p = 0.055) and by ABPM (14% versus 2.4%; p = 0.110), the difference according to gender was not statistically significant. ABPM detected also masked uncontrolled nocturnal hypertension in 14.3% of cases. Conclusions: Office BP monitoring alone is thus inadequate to ascertain optimal BP control because of BP variation. HBPM and mainly ABPM which can detect elevated nocturnal BP were needed to confirm proper BP control especially in patients with high cardiovascular risk in whom the prevalence of MUCH is higher.

PS-BPC03-4: DIAGNOSTIC AGREEMENT OF MASKED UNCONTROLLED HYPERTENSION DETECTED BY AMBULATORY BP AND HOME BP MEASURED BY AN ALL-IN-ONE BP MONITORING DEVICE

Objectives: Masked hypertension is a phenomenon in which office blood pressure (BP) is 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 BP range. Out-of-office BP control status may differ if defined by different BP indexes or measured under different conditions (resting or ambulatory), over different time-windows, or with different devices. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic agreement of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUHT) detected by ABPM indexes (ABPM-MUHT) and HBPM indexes (HBPM-MUHT) using the same all-in-one device. Methods: Medicated hypertension patients enrolled in the Home-Activity ICT-based Japan Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Prospective (HI-JAMP) Study between 2017 and 2020 consecutively underwent office BP monitoring, 24-h ABPM (with 30-min intervals), and 5-day HBPM (twice each morning and evening) using the same device (TM-2441; A&D Company, Tokyo). Controlled BP ranges for each BP index were as follows: office systolic BP [SBP] < 140 mmHg; morning home, evening home, or morning-evening (ME) average SBP < 135 mmHg; 24-h average SBP < 130 mmHg; daytime SBP < 135 mmHg; and nighttime SBP < 120 mmHg. Results: Of 2322 patients (males 53.2%, average age 69.2 ± 11.5 years, average office SBP 132.8 ± 18.8 mmHg), the prevalences of ABPM-MUHT and HBPM-MUHT were 11.0% and 13.9%, respectively, when MUHT was defined only by 24-h average SBP or ME average SBP. Among the 445 patients with any MUHT according to this definition, the diagnostic agreement of MUHT detected by ABPM and HBPM was 29.7%. The prevalences of HBPM-MUHT defined by morning SBP and evening SBP were 22.4% and 11.6%, respectively, and those of ABPM-MUHT defined by daytime SBP and nighttime SBP were 11.8% and 13.8%. When MUHT was defined by any time-window index (ABPM: daytime, nighttime, and 24-h average SBP; HBPM: morning, evening, ME average SBP), the prevalences of ABPM-MUHT and HBPM-MUHT were 19.8% and 25.0%, respectively, and the diagnostic agreement of MUHT detected by ABPM and HBPM in patients with any MUHT (n = 743) increased to 40.1%. Conclusion: Even in treated patients with well-controlled office BP, the prevalence of MUHT in the morning and nighttime was high. Assessment of BP control status only by ME average or 24-h average SBP, without considering specific time-windows, might underestimate cardiovascular risk.

Masked nocturnal hypertension as a result of high prevalence of non-dippers among apparently well-controlled hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: data from a prospective study

BackgroundAmbulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HTN) show the dipping patterns, identify masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH), and demonstrate the effectiveness of the blood pressure (BP) treatment. MUCH is associated with a two-fold higher risk of adverse events. Prevalence in patients with DM is between 13.3 and 66.4%. Our study aims to investigate the prevalence of MUCH and the BP patterns in a population of apparently well-controlled hypertensive patients with type 2 DM (T2DM). A second aspect was the assessment of the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment.MethodsOne hundred and sixty-three consecutively treated hypertensive patients with T2DM and an office BP between 130–139 and 80–89 mmHg performed a 24 h ABPM. The circadian BP variation, the presence of MUCH, and the correlations with the treatment were assessed.ResultsThere were 75 dippers (46.02%), 77 non-dippers (47.23%), 4 reverse dippers (2.45%), and 7 extreme dippers (4.30%). Eighty-one patients (77 non-dippers + 4 reverse dippers; 49.7%) had isolated nocturnal MUCH according to the mean night ABPM criteria. Dippers and extreme dippers (75 dippers + 7 extreme dippers; 51.3%) did not have any MUCH criteria. The patients took, on an average, 3 antihypertensive drugs with no difference between those with controlled HTN and the isolated nocturnal MUCH group. Significant factors associated with isolated nocturnal MUCH and a non-dipping BP pattern included age > 65 years (OR = 1.9), DM duration > 10 years (OR = 1.4), HTN duration > 6.5 years (OR = 1.2), obesity (OR = 1.6), and cardiovascular comorbidities (OR = 1.4).ConclusionsThe current study shows that half of the treated hypertensive patients with T2DM and office clinical normotension are non-dippers or reverse dippers. They experience isolated nocturnal MUCH due to their elevated nocturnal BP values, which comply with the actual definition of masked nocturnal hypertension. Bedtime chronotherapy in those patients could be linked to better effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment during the night with the important goal of reducing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events. ABPM should be performed in hypertensive patients with DM for better risk stratification and more effective control of HTN.

The prevalence of masked hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension in relation to overweight and obesity in a nationwide registry in China.

Masked hypertension is difficult to identify and is associated with adverse outcomes. How and to what extent masked hypertension is related to overweight and obesity remain unclear. In participants with a clinic blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg enrolled in a nationwide prospective registry in China, we performed ambulatory and home BP measurements and defined masked hypertension and masked uncontrolled hypertension as an elevated 24-h (≥130/80 mmHg), daytime (≥135/85 mmHg) or nighttime ambulatory BP (≥120/70 mmHg) or an elevated home BP (≥135/85 mmHg). Overweight and obesity were defined as a body mass index of 25.0-29.9 and ≥30.0 kg/m2, respectively. The 2838 participants had a mean (±SD) age of 54.9 ± 13.6 years and included 1286 (45.3%) men and 1065 (37.5%) and 173 (6.1%) patients with overweight and obesity, respectively. Multiple stepwise regression analyses identified that body mass index was significantly (P ≤ 0.006) associated with the prevalence of masked ambulatory and home hypertension in treated (n = 1694, 58.6% and 42.1%, respectively) but not untreated participants (n = 1144, 55.7% and 29.5%, respectively). In categorical analyses, significant associations were observed with overweight and obesity for the prevalence of masked uncontrolled ambulatory and home hypertension (P ≤ 0.02) but not masked ambulatory or home hypertension (P ≥ 0.08). The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for overweight and obesity relative to normal weight were 1.56 (1.27-1.92) and 1.34 (1.09-1.65) for masked uncontrolled ambulatory and home hypertension, respectively. In conclusion, overweight and obesity were associated with a higher prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension, indicating that clinic BP might overestimate antihypertensive treatment effects in patients with overweight and obesity.

HIGHER PREVALENCE OF MASKED UNCONTROLLED HYPERTENSION WITH NEW EUROPEAN BLOOD PRESSURE TARGETS IN AN ELDERLY PRIMARY CARE POPULATION

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the distribution and clinical characteristics of hypertension phenotypes among patients aged 65 years or older, in a primary care setting, applying the new lower blood pressure targets, of 140/80 mmHg for office blood pressure measurement and 130/75 for ambulatory measurement, proposed by the European Society of Hypertension in 2018. Design and method: This is a cross-sectional analysis of 77 subjects previously diagnosed with hypertension who used at least one antihypertensive drug in a primary care setting in south-east Sweden. Data was collected between May 2012 and May 2016. All subjects were examined regarding general clinical characteristics, office blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure (Spacelabs ABP monitor 90217). The participants were grouped based on office blood pressure target achievement. Furthermore, subjects were categorized in four groups based on hypertension phenotype. These groups were defined based on office- and ambulatory blood pressure target achievement; Sustained controlled hypertension i.e. concordant goal achievement, Sustained uncontrolled hypertension i.e. non-achievement, Masked uncontrolled hypertension i.e. controlled office blood pressure with uncontrolled ambulatory blood pressure and White coat uncontrolled hypertension i.e. uncontrolled office blood pressure with controlled ambulatory blood pressure. Lastly, shifts in the distribution of hypertension phenotypes using current and previous blood pressure targets respectively were examined. Results: Obesity related parameters (i.e. BMI and waist circumference) were significantly lower in the group with controlled hypertension based solely on current office blood pressure targets, with BMI (kg/m2) of 25.5 ± 3.9 vs. 28.8 ± 4.9 (p &lt; 0.01) and waist circumference (cm) of 91.0 ± 12.1 vs. 100.3 ± 12.7 (p &lt; 0.01). Among subjects with controlled office blood pressure, the prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension was higher (14/29 or 48%) when new office- and ambulatory blood pressure targets were applied than when older targets were applied (14/43 or 33%). Conclusions: The main finding of this observational study was that the prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension among subjects with controlled office blood pressure was higher applying new instead of old blood pressure targets. We believe that regular ambulatory blood pressure monitoring can facilitate optimized antihypertensive treatment.

The Key Role of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in the Detection of Masked Hypertension and Other Phenomena in Frail Geriatric Patients.

Background and Objectives: This study aims to determine prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUH) in frail geriatric patients with arterial hypertension and thus show the role of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) since hypertension occurs in more than 80% of people 60+ years and cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death worldwide. Despite modern pharmacotherapy, use of combination therapy and normal office blood pressure (BP), patients’ prognoses might worsen due to inadequate therapy (never-detected MUH). Materials and Methods: 118 frail geriatric patients (84.2 ± 4.4 years) treated for arterial hypertension with office BP < 140/90 mmHg participated in the study. 24-h ABPM and clinical examination were performed. Results: Although patients were normotensive in the office, 24-h measurements showed that BP values in 72% of hypertensives were not in the target range: MUH was identified in 47 (40%) patients during 24 h, in 48 (41%) patients during daytime and nocturnal hypertension in 60 (51%) patients. Conclusions: ABPM is essential for frail geriatric patients due to high prevalence of MUH, which cannot be detected based on office BP measurements. ABPM also helps to detect exaggerated morning surge, isolated systolic hypertension, dipping/non-dipping, and set and properly manage adequate treatment, which reduces incidence of cardiovascular events and contributes to decreasing the financial burden of society.

AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE PHENOTYPES, VASCULAR INFLAMMATION AND ARTERIAL STIFFNESS IN ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION

Objective: Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular(CV) disease worldwide. Ambulatory blood pressure(ABPM) is the gold standard for the management of hypertension and its various phenotypes may provide prognostic information beyond clinic blood pressure (BP). The aim was to study the prevalence of various ABPM phenotypes and their relationship with target organ damage(TOD) i.e., urine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR), and arterial stiffness as pulse wave velocity (PWV)vascular inflammation as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein(hs-CRP) in a Saudi hypertensive population. Design and method: We studied consecutive patients aged &gt; 18 yr-old referred to the Hypertension Clinic at King Abdul Aziz Cardiac Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ABPM was performed for a 24 hour period with an oscillometric device. Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) was defined as controlled clinic BP with daytime elevated BP (definition-1); 24-hr ambulatory BP (definition-2); and either daytime or nighttime elevated BP (definition-3). Dipping was defined as a 10–20% fall in nocturnal BP; reverse-dipping as less than 0% and extreme dipping as more than 20%. The study had Institutional Ethics Committee permission. Results: The study population included 428 subjects, (mean age 53.5 ± 14 years, female = 45%). Nine percent of the population had WC; 30% had MUCH which was driven by nocturnal hypertension with higher prevalence in patients with pre-hypertension; 24 hr, 68%; daytime, 56% and nighttime 86%(p &lt; 0.0001). Overall, 71% of the patients had MUCH which was driven by nocturnal hypertension vs. 24-hr or daytime (70%. vs. 42% vs. 32%, P &lt; 0.0001) respectively. Eighty percent of the cohort had non-dipping with similar prevalence in MUCH and uncontrolled hypertension. Compared with controlled BP, patients with MUCH had significantly higher ACR (18.8 ± 8 vs 6.2 ± 6, p &lt; 0.01), PWV(11.2 vs. 9.9, p &lt; 0.001) and hs-CRP (1.6 ± 1.4 vs. 6.4 ± 2.3, p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions: This is the first study exploring ABPM phenotypes in a Saudi hypertensive population, showing a high prevalence of MUCH in apparently well-controlled patients, driven by nocturnal hypertension and associated with prehypertension. The MUCH population had greater TOD than those with controlled BP associated with a non-dipping pattern. Our results highlight the importance of ABPM in the management of hypertension in Saudi Arabia.

Clinical features and predictors of masked uncontrolled hypertension: from Korean ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (Korabp) registry

Abstract Background Clinical characteristics of patients with masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) are poorly defined, and few studies have reported on clinical predictors of MUCH. We investigated demographic, lifestyle, clinical and blood pressure (BP) characteristics in patients with MUCH and proposed a prediction model for MUCH. Method We analyzed 2044 subjects taking antihypertensive medication enrolled in the Korean Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (Kor-ABP) registry, who were categorized into controlled hypertension (n=481, normal office BP, normal 24-hour ABP), pseudo-uncontrolled hypertension (n=131, high office BP, normal 24-hour ABP), MUCH (n=380, normal office BP, high 24-hour ABP), and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (n=1,052; high office BP and high 24-hour ABP). Result The prevalence of MUCH increased with office systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), whereas it was not associated with the numbers of antihypertensive drugs. But in patients with a high office SBP (≥130 mmHg), the prevalence of MUCH increased with decreasing numbers of antihypertensive drugs (interaction p=0.008; Figure 1A). Multiple logistic regression analysis identified high office SBPs and DBPs, prior stroke, dyslipidemia and single anti-hypertensive agent use as independent predictors of MUCH (Table 1). A prediction model using these predictors showed a high diagnostic accuracy (C-index 0.833) and a goodness of fit for the presence of MUCH (Figure 1B). Conclusion MUCH is associated with the borderline increase in office BP and the underuse of anti-hypertensive drugs as well as dyslipidemia and prior stroke, which underscores the importance of achieving the optimal BP control level in the high risk patients. The proposed model would accurately predict MUCH in patients with controlled office BP. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

SEASONAL VARIATION IN PREVALENCE OF MASKED UNCONTROLLED HYPERTENSION IN GENERAL PRACTICE OUTPATIENTS

Objective: Masked hypertension is generally known as a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor at a same level comparable to sustained hypertension. However, there is no data on seasonal differences in the prevalence of masked hypertension in outpatients under hypertensive treatment in clinical practice. We thus assessed seasonal variation in prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension using dataset of the Japan Morning Surge-Home Blood Pressure (J-HOP) study. Design and method: The J-HOP study is a nation-wide prospective observational study to predict CVD events in clinical practice outpatients, and participants underwent home blood pressure (BP) measurements in the morning and evening for a 14-day period. Clinic and home BP levels, prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension were compared in participants divided by seasons when they measured HBP. Masked uncontrolled hypertension was defined as clinic BP < 140/90 mmHg and morning or evening home BP > 135/85 mmHg based on the current Japanese guideline. Results: Among 4271 participants (mean age, 64.9 ± 10.9 years; 47.0% male; 91.4% hypertensive patients, 67 institutions in various areas in Japan), morning home systolic BP was significantly lower in summer compared to other seasons (spring, 139.4 ± 15.5 mmHg; summer, 134.1 ± 15.6 mmHg; autumn, 139.4 ± 16.1 mmHg; winter, 140.3 ± 15.5 mmHg, p value < 0.01 in all comparison between summer and other seasons). Moreover, prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension was significantly higher in winter that that in summer (spring, 22.5%; summer, 18.1%; autumn, 22.7%; winter, 24.4%, p < 0.01 in comparison between summer and winter) (Figure). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, masked uncontrolled hypertension was lower in summer compared to spring as reference after adjusted host factors and clinic BP levels (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.77, p < 0.001).Conclusions: The present study revealed prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension tended to be lower in summer. Measurement of home BP is thus more valuable than clinic BP for management of hypertension corresponding to changes of season.

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring: Profiles in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients and Utility in Management.

Optimal control of blood pressure (BP) may reduce the risk of progression of CKD. Misclassification of hypertension (HTN) and status of control may result in suboptimal management. Clinic or home BP may overestimate or underestimate status of control compared with ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), which is considered the gold standard. The latter relates not only to the superiority of ABPM concerning outcome prognosis but also to its ability to accurately diagnose white coat and masked HTN, which is critical in assuring adequate BP control. However, ABPM has not gained widespread use in practice because of limited third-party reimbursement and a paucity of high quality randomized controlled intervention studies evaluating its use. Herein, we review HTN phenotypes that have been identified in patients with CKD, and the potential value of ABPM in this high-risk population.

A0241 Use of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in the Diagnosis of White Coat and Masked Hypertension

Objectives: We investigated the different methods on diagnosis of white coat and masked phenomena in ambulatory blood pressure (ABP). Methods: We collected information on clinical characteristics and laboratory data, and performed measurements of OBP and ABP in 274 subjects, including 46 persons with high normal OBP, 187 untreated patients with grade 1 and grade 2 hypertension, and 41 treated hypertensive patients. The 95 and 5 percentile for the difference between OBP and daytime ABP, respectively, as the cutoff for the definition of white coat phenomenon and masked phenomenon. Results: If white coat and masked phenomenon and hypertension were diagnosed according to the current hypertension guidelines, the prevalence of white coat phenomenon did not differ between untreated and treated hypertensive patients (P = 0.46). In the untreated group, the prevalence of white coat phenomenon was higher in grade 2 than grade 1 hypertension (P = 0.033), whereas the prevalence of WCH did not differ (P = 0.23).The prevalence of masked hypertension was 73.9% in high normal BP group.The prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension was 4.9%. If the 95 percentile (≥20.5/20.5mmHg)and 5 percentile (≤-18.67/−6.0mmHg)for the difference between OBP and daytime ABP were, respectively, used as cutoff for the definition of white coat and masked phenomenon, the prevalence of white coat phenomenon did not differ between treated and untreated groups (P = 0.54). In the untreated group, the prevalence of white coat phenomenon was higher in grade 2 than grade 1 hypertension (P < 0.0001).The prevalence of masked phenomenon did not differ between persons with high normal OBP (15.2%) and untreated (5.9%) and treated hypertensive patients (12.2%)(P > 0.05). Conclusion: The percentile methods may be useful for the diagnosis of white coat and masked phenomena.

A16036 Large Discrepancy between Unobserved Automated Office Blood Pressure and Ambulatory Blood Pressure in a High Cardiovascular Risk Cohort

Objectives: Recently, automated office blood pressure (AOBP) has been shown to eliminate the white-coat effect and to be more concordant with ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM) and home blood pressure (BP) measurements. The purpose of this study was to compare BP measured by AOBP with that by ABPM in high cardiovascular risk patients. Methods: The study participants were recruited from a prospective cohort study (Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disease Etiology Research Center–High Risk Cohort [CMERC-HI]; clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02003781). 1,208 participants who had undergone both AOBP and ABPM within 7days of each measurement were analyzed for this study. Results: The 95% limits of agreement between systolic AOBP and daytime ABPM systolic blood pressure (SBP) were − 34.78 to 20.19 mmHg (mean difference = − 7.30 ± 14.0). The mean differences in quintiles of AOBP distributions increased with decreasing AOBP measurements [ − 17.8 ± 11.2 (Q1, systolic AOBP < 113), − 10.9 ± 11.1 (Q2, systolic AOBP 113–121), − 8.5 ± 10.7 (Q3, systolic AOBP 121–128), − 4.2 ± 11.8 (Q4, systolic AOBP 128–137), 4.9 ± 14.2 (Q5, systolic AOBP > 137), p < 0.001]. The prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension was 310 (25.7%), and the prevalence of white-coat effects was 102 (8.4%). Large discrepancy was significantly associated with lower systolic AOBP, higher ASCVD risk score, and history of cardiovascular disease. Conclusion: Lower range of systolic AOBP showed a large discrepancy with daytime ABPM SBP and a high prevalence of masked hypertension in high-risk patients. The status of BP control should be confirmed by out-of-office BP measurements, even when using AOBP as a clinical BP of reference in high-risk patients.

Masked uncontrolled hypertension in patients on maintenance hemodialysis.

Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) has been proven to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the general population. We performed the current analysis to determine its prevalence in dialysis patients and its association with pulse wave velocity (PWV). From 368 participants of another cohort study, we selected 145 subjects with controlled predialysis blood pressure (BP). All subjects underwent ambulatory BP monitoring and PWV measurement. MUCH was defined as controlled predialysis BP with daytime BP⩾135/85 mm Hg (definition-1); total ambulatory BP⩾130/80 mm Hg (definition-2); and either daytime BP⩾135/85 mm Hg or nighttime BP⩾120/70 mm Hg (definition-3). The prevalence of MUCH was 43.4% (definition-1), 55.9% (definition-2) and 74.5% (definition-3). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the use of antihypertensive medication was the most consistent predictor of MUCH within all 3 definitions (all odds ratio (OR)⩾4.28, P<0.001). Predialysis systolic BP (both OR>1, P⩽0.04), predialysis diastolic BP (both OR>1, P⩽0.001) and hemoglobin (both OR<1, P=0.02) were all significantly associated with MUCH in two models. Interdialytic weight gain (OR=0.52, P=0.02) was associated with MUCH under definition-2, and BMI (OR=0.86, P=0.03) was associated with MUCH under definition-3. Patients with MUCH had significantly elevated PWV compared with their counterparts according to all three definitions with or without adjusting for covariates (all P⩽0.03). In conclusion, MUCH affects a large proportion of dialysis patients with controlled predialysis BP and is associated with increased PWV. Patients on antihypertensive medications and with higher predialysis BP are more likely to have MUCH.

Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients, Cardiovascular Risk Profile and the Prevalence of Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension (MUCH).

Introduction:The term masked hypertension (MH) should be used for untreated individuals who have normal office blood pressure but elevated ambulatory blood pressure. For treated patients, this condition should be termed masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH).Research Objectives:Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) has gone unrecognized because few studies have used 24-h ABPM to determine the prevalence of suboptimal BP control in seemingly well-treated patients, and there are few such studies in large cohorts of treated patients attending usual clinical practice. This is important because masked hypertension is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events. This study was conducted to obtain more information about the association between hypertension and other CV risk factors, about office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control as well as on cardiovascular (CV) risk profile in treated hypertensive patients, also to define the prevalence and characteristics of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) among treated hypertensive patients in routine clinical practice.Patients and methods:In this study 2514 male and female patients were included during a period of 5 years follow up. All patients have ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for at least 24h. We identified patients with treated and controlled BP according to current international guidelines (clinic BP, 140/90mmHg). Cardiovascular risk assessment was based on personal history, clinic BP values, as well as target organ damage evaluation. Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) was diagnosed in these patients if despite controlled clinic BP, the mean 24-h ABPM average remained elevated (24-h systolic BP ≥130mmHg and/or 24-h diastolic BP ≥80mmHg).Results:Patients had a mean age of 60.2+10 years, and the majority of them (94.6%) were followed by specialist physicians. Average clinic BP was 150.4+16/89.9+12 mmHg. About 70% of patients displayed a very high-risk profile. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed in all recruited patients for at least 24h. Despite the combined medical treatment (78% of the patients), clinic control (<140/90 mmHg) was achieved in only 26.2% of patients, the corresponding control rate for ambulatory BP (<130/80 mmHg) being 32.7%. From 2514 patients with treated BP, we identified 803 with treated and controlled office BP control (<140/90 mmHg), of whom 258 patients (32.1%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 57.2 years, 54.7% men). The prevalence of MUCH was slightly higher in males, patients with borderline clinic and office BP (130–139/80–89 mmHg), and patients at high cardiovascular risk (smokers, diabetes, obesity). Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) was most often due to poor control of nocturnal BP, with the proportion of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that solely attributable to daytime BP elevation (22.3 vs. 10.1%, P 0.001).Conclusion:The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control in patients with treated and well-controlled clinic BP is high. The characteristics of patients with MUCH (male, longer duration of hypertension, obesity, smoking history, and diabetes) indicate that this is a higher-risk group with most to gain from improved BP.

Prevalence of Masked Hypertension: a Population-Based Survey in a Large City by Using 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.

Background and ObjectivesWe estimated the prevalence of hypertension and hypertension subtypes in a large semi-urban city in Korea, using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in a randomly selected sample population.Subjects and MethodsA random sample (aged 20-65 years) from a city with an adult population of approximately 600000 was selected by using a list-assisted random digit dialing method. The 24-hour ABPM and conventional blood pressure measurement (CBPM) of these individuals were obtained.ResultsAmong the 496 participants, valid 24-hour ABPM and CBPM were obtained from 462 (93%) individuals. The estimated prevalence of hypertension in Goyang was 17.54% by CBPM and 32.70% by 24-hour ABPM (p<0.01). In the age stratified analysis, both CBPM and 24-hour ABPM showed increased prevalence of hypertension with age. The estimated prevalence of masked hypertension was 16.22% and that of white-coat hypertension was 1.08%. Men had a higher prevalence of masked hypertension than women (20.79% vs. 11.86%, p=0.0295). The estimated prevalence of masked hypertension was 17.5%, 20.58%, 24.34%, and 13.29% in the age categories of 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, respectively. The estimated prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension was 26.79% in patients with hypertension who were taking antihypertensive medications.ConclusionThe estimated prevalence of hypertension by 24-hour ABPM was higher than that by CBPM, revealing high prevalence of masked hypertension. The high prevalence of masked hypertension supports the adoption of ABPM in the national population survey and clinical practice to improve public health and reduce health care costs.

Prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension according to the number of office blood pressure measurements

Introduction and objectivesThe reported prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) varies because many studies are not comparable as they use different measurement methodologies. To evaluate the influence of the number of office blood pressure readings on the prevalence of MUCH we conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter study in treated hypertensive patients. Patients and methodsWe carried out an observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study in 33 Spanish hospital-based hypertension units, involving 35 investigators and 12 Autonomous Communities. Six blood pressure readings and a 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring were performed in treated hypertensive patients. The means of the first 3 readings (P123), the 2nd, 3rd and 4th readings (P234), the 3rd, 4th and 5th readings (P345) and the last 3 readings (P456) were compared with mean 24-h blood pressure. MUCH was defined as office blood pressure <140/90mmHg and 24-h blood pressure ≥130/80mmHg, considering the first 3 readings (MUCH123), the 2nd, 3rd and 4th readings (MUCH234), the 3rd, 4th and 5th readings (MUCH345) and the last 3 readings (MUCH456). ResultsWe included 498 hypertensive patients. Mean (standard deviation) office blood pressure measurements were: (P123) 141(18)/82(11); (P234) 139(17)/81(11); (P345) 138(17)/81(11) and (P456) 137(16)/80(10) mmHg. Mean 24-h blood pressure was 127(13.8)/75(9.5) mmHg. The correlation coefficients between ambulatory and office systolic/diastolic blood pressure were (P123):0.48/0.50; (P234):0.50/0.52; (P345):0.50/0.54; and (P456):0.50/0.55 (p<0.001, all). The prevalences of MUCH123, MUCH234, MUCH345 and MUCH456 were 14.5%, 18.9%, 19.5% and 21.1%, respectively. ConclusionsThe prevalence of MUCH diagnosis depends on the serial office blood pressure readings, being much higher for the last three blood pressure readings. Discarding the first and second office blood pressure measures seems to be the most accurate method for diagnosing MUCH.

Prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension according to the number of office blood pressure measurements

Introduction and objectivesThe reported prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) varies because many studies are not comparable as they use different measurement methodologies. To evaluate the influence of the number of office blood pressure readings on the prevalence of MUCH we conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter study in treated hypertensive patients. Patients and methodsWe carried out an observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study in 33 Spanish hospital-based hypertension units, involving 35 investigators and 12 Autonomous Communities. Six blood pressure readings and a 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring were performed in treated hypertensive patients. The means of the first 3 readings (P123), the 2nd, 3rd and 4th readings (P234), the 3rd, 4th and 5th readings (P345) and the last 3 readings (P456) were compared with mean 24-h blood pressure. MUCH was defined as office blood pressure <140/90mmHg and 24-h blood pressure ≥130/80mmHg, considering the first 3 readings (MUCH123), the 2nd, 3rd and 4th readings (MUCH234), the 3rd, 4th and 5th readings (MUCH345) and the last 3 readings (MUCH456). ResultsWe included 498 hypertensive patients. Mean (standard deviation) office blood pressure measurements were: (P123) 141(18)/82(11); (P234) 139(17)/81(11); (P345) 138(17)/81(11) and (P456) 137(16)/80(10) mmHg. Mean 24-h blood pressure was 127(13.8)/75(9.5) mmHg. The correlation coefficients between ambulatory and office systolic/diastolic blood pressure were (P123):0.48/0.50; (P234):0.50/0.52; (P345):0.50/0.54; and (P456):0.50/0.55 (p<0.001, all). The prevalences of MUCH123, MUCH234, MUCH345 and MUCH456 were 14.5%, 18.9%, 19.5% and 21.1%, respectively. ConclusionsThe prevalence of MUCH diagnosis depends on the serial office blood pressure readings, being much higher for the last three blood pressure readings. Discarding the first and second office blood pressure measures seems to be the most accurate method for diagnosing MUCH.

Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension in CKD.

Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is diagnosed in patients treated for hypertension who are normotensive in the clinic but hypertensive outside. In this study of 333 veterans with CKD, we prospectively evaluated the prevalence of MUCH as determined by ambulatory BP monitoring using three definitions of hypertension (daytime hypertension ≥135/85 mmHg; either nighttime hypertension ≥120/70 mmHg or daytime hypertension; and 24-hour hypertension ≥130/80 mmHg) or by home BP monitoring (hypertension ≥135/85 mmHg). The prevalence of MUCH was 26.7% by daytime ambulatory BP, 32.8% by 24-hour ambulatory BP, 56.1% by daytime or night-time ambulatory BP, and 50.8% by home BP. To assess the reproducibility of the diagnosis, we repeated these measurements after 4 weeks. Agreement in MUCH diagnosis by ambulatory BP was 75-78% (κ coefficient for agreement, 0.44-0.51), depending on the definition used. In contrast, home BP showed an agreement of only 63% and a κ coefficient of 0.25. Prevalence of MUCH increased with increasing clinic systolic BP: 2% in the 90-110 mmHg group, 17% in the 110-119 mmHg group, 34% in the 120-129 mmHg group, and 66% in the 130-139 mmHg group. Clinic BP was a good determinant of MUCH (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.76-0.87). In diagnosing MUCH, home BP was not different from clinic BP. In conclusion, among people with CKD, MUCH is common and reproducible, and should be suspected when clinic BP is in the prehypertensive range. Confirmation of MUCH diagnosis should rely on ambulatory BP monitoring.

Modifying influence of subclinical hypothyroidism on arterial hypertension: relationship to masked treatment failure, circadian blood pressure profile and target organs status

Aim. The study aimed to investigate the modifying influence of subclinical hypothyroidism (SH) on arterial hypertension (AH), the prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension, circadian blood pressure (BP) profile and cardiovascular disorders. Materials and methods. We investigated twenty-four hours BP monitoring data and cardiovascular parameters in 101 hypertensive patients with normal thyroid function ( n = 45) or SH ( n = 56). Then, we observed 44 patients with AH and SH within six months; 24 of them received levothyroxine. Results. Patients with AH and SH had higher risk of masked uncontrolled hypertension (for TSH ≥ 5 mU/L, OR 1.9 [1.11, 3.26], p = 0.016); increased pulse BP, daily BP variability, non-dippers rate as well as more marked myocardial hypertrophy, arterial dysfunction and microcirculation deterioration ( p < 0.05 for all parameters). Levothyroxine therapy reduced the incidence of masked uncontrolled hypertension, ambulatory BP value, non-dippers rate and intensified microcirculation ( p < 0.05 for all parameters). Conclusion. SH is a risk factor for masked failure of antihypertensive therapy. SH impairs the profile of ambulatory BP and target organs damages in patients with AH. These disorders can be partly corrected by the use of levothyroxine.

High prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension in people with treated hypertension

There are limited data on the quality of treated blood pressure (BP) control during normal daily life, and in particular, the prevalence of 'masked uncontrolled hypertension' (MUCH) in people with treated and seemingly well-controlled BP is unknown. This is important because masked hypertension in 'treatment naïve' patients is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events. We therefore conducted the first study to define the prevalence and characteristics of MUCH among a large sample of hypertensive patients in routine clinical practice in whom BP was treated and controlled to recommended clinic BP goals. We analysed data from the Spanish Society of Hypertension ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) Registry and identified patients with treated and controlled BP according to current international guidelines (clinic BP <140/90 mmHg). Masked uncontrolled hypertension was diagnosed in these patients if despite controlled clinic BP, the mean 24-h ABPM average remained elevated (24-h systolic BP ≥130 mmHg and/or 24-h diastolic BP ≥80 mmHg). From 62 788 patients with treated BP in the Spanish registry, we identified 14 840 with treated and controlled clinic BP, of whom 4608 patients (31.1%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 59.4 years, 59.7% men). The prevalence of MUCH was significantly higher in males, patients with borderline clinic BP (130-9/80-9 mmHg), and patients at high cardiovascular risk (smokers, diabetes, obesity). Masked uncontrolled hypertension was most often because of poor control of nocturnal BP, with the proportion of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that solely attributable to daytime BP elevation (24.3 vs. 12.9%, P < 0.001). The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control in patients with treated and well-controlled clinic BP is high. Clinic BP monitoring alone is thus inadequate to optimize BP control because many patients have an elevated nocturnal BP. These findings suggest that ABPM should become more routine to confirm BP control, especially in higher risk groups and/or those with borderline control of clinic BP.