Uncontrolled Office Blood Pressure Research Articles

Blood pressure variability in controlled and uncontrolled blood pressure and its association with left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic function.

High systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability has been associated with higher risk for target-organ damage. In a cross-sectional study done in a tertiary outpatient hypertension clinic, we compared short-term SBP variability among controlled and uncontrolled hypertensive patients and evaluated the association between higher levels of SBP variability and diastolic function and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Patients were evaluated by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and transthoracic Doppler echocardiogram. Blood pressure (BP) variability was evaluated by the time-rate index and high variability corresponded to index values in the top quartile of distribution. Echocardiographic parameters were compared in patients with and without higher BP variability within controlled and uncontrolled office BP (⩽140/90 mm Hg). The analyses included 447 patients with 58±12 years of age, 67% were women, 68% white, 43% current or previous smokers and 32% with diabetes mellitus. Among the whole sample, 137 patients had controlled and 310 uncontrolled BP. The 75th percentile cutoff points for the time-rate index were 0.502 mm Hg min(-1) and 0.576 mm Hg min(-1) for participants with controlled and uncontrolled BP, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, the time-rate index did not differ between controlled and uncontrolled patients. BP variability was not associated with LVH or diastolic function in controlled and uncontrolled BP after adjustment for 24-h SBP and age. Patients with controlled and uncontrolled BP had similar SBP variability assessed by time-rate index, which was not associated with LVH or diastolic function. These findings should be confirmed in studies with larger sample size.

Abstract 15836: Blood Pressure Control and Subclinical Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Treated Hypertensive Subjects

Background: Blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients is crucial to reducing the risk of future cardiovascular events and heart failure. Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) can detect early subclinical cardiac dysfunction, even when LV ejection fraction (EF) is normal, and is an important prognostic indicator. It is not known whether poor BP control is associated with subclinical dysfunction by GLS, and whether ambulatory BP (ABP) is superior to office BP measurements in this regard. Methods: Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography and 24-hour ABP monitoring were performed in 394 treated hypertensive subjects (mean age 72 ± 9 years; 63% women) with LVEF ≥50% from the Cardiovascular Abnormalities and Brain Lesions (CABL) study. Uncontrolled office BP was defined as systolic BP ≥140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg; uncontrolled ABP as mean 24-hour systolic BP ≥130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥80 mmHg. Abnormal GLS was defined as a value above the 95% percentile of healthy normotensive subjects from the CABL cohort. Results: Office BP was uncontrolled in 188 subjects (47.7%), and ABP in 162 (41.1%). Agreement between these two categorization was low [kappa = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.06-0.26; concordant classification in only 58.4% of subjects]. Subjects with uncontrolled ABP showed significantly worse GLS compared to those with controlled ABP (-16.3 ± 3.0% vs -17.7 ± 2.9%, p<0.0001), whereas GLS was not significantly different between those with uncontrolled vs controlled office BP (-16.8 ± 3.1% vs -17.4 ± 3.0%, p=0.07). After adjustment for pertinent covariates (age, sex, race-ethnicity, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease and LV mass index), uncontrolled ABP was associated with a higher risk of abnormal GLS (odds ratio = 2.32; 95% CI, 1.33-4.03; p=0.003), while uncontrolled office BP was not (odds ratio = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.76-2.22; p=0.35). Conclusions: Uncontrolled 24-hour ABP is strongly associated with LV subclinical dysfunction in hypertensive subjects with normal LVEF. Assessing BP control with ABP monitoring may refine the risk stratification of treated hypertensive patients for early LV dysfunction.

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

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. 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. 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%. 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.

Characteristics, drug combinations and dosages of primary care patients with uncontrolled ambulatory blood pressure and high medication adherence

Most studies on the prevalence and determinants of resistant hypertension (RH) do not account for white coat hypertension, medication non-adherence, or use of suboptimal treatment dosages. We studied the characteristics, drug combinations, and dosages of patients on at least three antihypertensives of different classes who had uncontrolled blood pressure on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and high medication adherence measured by electronic monitoring. The data were collected as part of the baseline measures of a hypertension control trial. Of 140 monitored primary care patients, all with uncontrolled office blood pressure, 69 (49%) were on at least three antihypertensives of different classes. Of these 69, 15 (22%) were controlled on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, 20 (29%) were uncontrolled and non-adherent, leaving only 34 (49%) adherent to their medications and having uncontrolled ambulatory hypertension (uncontrolled RH). Thirty-one (91%) of the 34 uncontrolled RH patients were prescribed a diuretic, of which 24 were on hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg. Less than half of the patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or calcium channel blocker were prescribed maximal doses of these agents. Half of the RH can be attributed to white coat effect and poor medication adherence, and all of the remaining patients were on apparently suboptimal drug combinations and/or dosages. Primary care physicians need to be educated regarding the optimal treatment of RH.

Relationships of Different Blood Pressure Categories to Indices of Inflammation and Platelet Activity in Sustained Hypertensive Patients with Uncontrolled Office Blood Pressure

Failure to decrease blood pressure (BP) normally during nighttime (non-dipping) in hypertension is associated with higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In addition, non-dipping BP is associated with increased platelet activity and inflammatory response; however, there has been no study to evaluate the relationship of non-dipping BP to indices of platelet activity and inflammation in uncontrolled hypertensive patients. In the present study, hypertensive subjects with uncontrolled office BP were firstly divided into three groups: 84 subjects with white coat effect and 365 subjects with true uncontrolled hypertension. Then, true uncontrolled hypertensive patients were divided into two groups: 158 patients with dipping and 207 patients with non-dipping. Mean platelet volume (MPV), uric acid (UA), γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) levels were studied. The general characteristics and risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) of the study population were similar among the groups. MPV, UA, GGT, CRP, and hs-CRP levels were significantly higher in non-dipper group than both dipper and white coat effect groups, and were significantly higher in dipper group than in white coat effect group (MPV: 9.1 ± 1.3, 8.7 ± 1.1, and 8.0 ± 0.9 fL; UA: 6.9 ± 1.2, 5.9 ± 1.4, and 4.1 ± 0.8 mg/dL; GGT: 38.9 ± 11.1, 33.6 ± 14.9, and 25.2 ± 9.2 U/L; CRP: 7.1 ± 2.4, 6.2 ± 1.9, and 3.9 ± 0.8 mg/dL; hs-CRP: 3.8 ± 1.5, 3.3 ± 1.2, and 2.0 ± 0.6, non-dipper, dipper, and white coat effect groups, respectively, all p values <0.01). All study parameters strongly correlated with each other. In conclusion, in hypertensive patients with uncontrolled office BP, presence of non-dipping BP is associated with increased platelet activity and inflammation, which can be one of the underlying plausible mechanisms of non-dipping BP status.

Resistant hypertension: a practical clinical approach

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as an uncontrolled office blood pressure (BP) despite the use of at least three antihypertensive drugs. With an increasing prevalence, RH implies in a very high cardiovascular risk and needs a careful clinical approach, aiming to control BP and to reduce its morbidity and mortality. The initial diagnostic approach involves drug adherence checking and the evaluation of antihypertensive scheme, emphasizing the use of diuretics and adequate combination and dosages of the two other drugs, which preferentially reduces cardiovascular risk and promotes prevention/regression of target organ damages. Because of an exaggerated white-coat effect, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) at baseline is mandatory to classify patients into true RH (uncontrolled ambulatory BPs) and white-coat RH (controlled ambulatory BPs), and define initial therapeutic approach. Ideally, the objective is ambulatory BP control, so the treatment follow-up shall be based on ABPM measurements. The treatment involves lifestyle changes and use of adequate combinations of antihypertensive agents from different classes. In this way, patients with true RH need to intensify antihypertensive treatment by adding aldosterone antagonists as the fourth drug and also changing antihypertensive treatment to bedtime. Otherwise, in patients with controlled ambulatory BP, the therapeutic scheme should be maintained and ABPM or home BP monitoring repeated serially. Despite pharmacological interventions, ambulatory BP control in RH patients remains challenging and new interventional procedures have been recently proposed, as renal denervation and baroreflex activation therapy. Currently, these procedures shall be reserved to true RH patients in whom other alternatives have failed.

How to use ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in resistant hypertension

Resistant hypertension is defined as an uncontrolled office blood pressure (BP) despite the use of at least three antihypertensive drugs, in adequate doses and combinations, preferentially including one diuretic. It is a clinical diagnosis based on office BP measurements. Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) is the cornerstone in the management of patients with resistant hypertension, as it is mandatory for diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and prognosis. In relation to diagnosis, ABPM measurements have classified patients with resistant hypertension into four subgroups: true, white-coat, controlled and masked resistant hypertension. This classification largely defines the therapeutic approach and the follow-up for each group. In this way, the target of antihypertensive treatment is ambulatory BP control and not office BP control. Chronotherapy based on ABPM values might frequently lead to a more rational treatment regimen. In relation to prognosis, uncontrolled ambulatory BP levels at baseline identify a subgroup of patients with a very high cardiovascular risk profile and a significantly worse prognosis. ABPM parameters can provide a better cardiovascular risk stratification than other traditional risk factors and office BPs.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Is it mandatory for blood pressure control in treated hypertensive patients?

Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) is superior to office blood pressure (BP) in predicting cardiovascular events. However, its use to optimise BP control in treated hypertensive patients is less well examined. In this observational study conducted in 899 general practitioners' offices, 4078 hypertensive patients with uncontrolled office BP were included. Antihypertensive therapy was intensified and after 1 year office BP and 24-hour ABP were measured to categorise patients according to the ESC/ESH 2007 guidelines. In this cohort (mean office BP 156/90 mmHg, mean ABP 146/85 mmHg), 2059 out of 4078 patients (50.5%) had controlled office BP (<140/90 mmHg) at 1 year examination. Of these apparently controlled patients (N=2059), 1339 (65.8%) had 24-hour ABP ≥ 130/80 mmHg, indicating masked hypertension (32.9% of all treated patients). In the prespecified subgroups the prevalence of masked hypertension was the following: diabetes 28.2%, CVD 29.1%, and CKD 32.1%. White coat hypertension (24h-ABP<130/80 mmHg and office BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg) was found in 12.4% (N=233) of patients with elevated office BP (6.1% of all treated patients), and in 5.7% of the diabetic subgroup, 5.6% CVD and 7.1% CKD. Discrepancies in BP categorisation between office BP and 24-hour ABP were high; all subjects 52.8%, diabetes 50.0%, CVD 49.0% and CKD 50.4%. In hypertensive patients on therapy, 2 out of 3 with apparently controlled office BP had masked hypertension, suggesting a more aggressive therapy, and 1 out of 8 with elevated office BP had white coat hypertension potentially falsely forcing physicians to intensify therapy. The 3A Registry is listed under clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01454583.

Prognostic factors in resistant hypertension: implications for cardiovascular risk stratification and therapeutic management

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as uncontrolled office blood pressure (BP) in spite of the use of at least three antihypertensive medications. Although its condition has a high prevalence, it is still understudied, and its prognosis is not well established. Some prospective studies evaluated the prognostic value of ambulatory BP monitoring, ECG and renal parameters. They pointed out that ambulatory BPs are important predictors of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, whereas office BP has no prognostic value. The diagnosis of true RH and the nondipping pattern are also valuable predictors of cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, several ECG (prolonged ventricular repolarization, serial changes in the strain pattern and left ventricular hypertrophy) and renal parameters (albuminuria and reduced glomerular filtration rate) are also powerful cardiovascular risk markers in RH. These markers and others yet unexplored, such as arterial stiffness and serum biomarkers, may improve cardiovascular risk stratification in these very high-risk patients.

Appropriate Time Interval to Repeat Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Patients With White-Coat Resistant Hypertension

Resistant hypertension is defined as uncontrolled office blood pressure, despite the use of ≥3 antihypertensive drugs. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is mandatory to diagnose 2 different groups, those with true and white-coat resistant hypertension. Patients are found to change categories between controlled/uncontrolled ambulatory pressures without changing their office blood pressures. In this way, ABPM should be periodically repeated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the most appropriate time interval to repeat ABPM to assure sustained blood pressure control in patients with white-coat resistant hypertension. This prospective study enrolled 198 patients (69% women; mean age: 68.9±9.9 years) diagnosed as white-coat resistant hypertension on ABPM. Patients were submitted to a second confirmatory examination 3 months later and repeated twice at 6-month intervals. Statistical analyses included Bland-Altman repeatability coefficients and multivariate logistic regression. Mean office blood pressure was 163±20/84±17 mm Hg, and mean 24-hour blood pressure was 118±8/66±7 mm Hg. White-coat resistant hypertension diagnosis presented a moderate reproducibility and was confirmed in 144 patients after 3 months. In the third and fourth ABPMs, 74% and 79% of patients sustained the diagnosis. In multivariate regression, a daytime systolic blood pressure ≤115 mm Hg in the confirmatory ABPM triplicated the chance of white-coat resistant hypertension status persistence after 1 year. In conclusion, a confirmatory ABPM is necessary after 3 months of the first white-coat-resistant hypertension diagnosis, and the procedure should be repeated at 6-month intervals, except in patients with daytime systolic blood pressure ≤115 mm Hg, in whom it may be repeated annually.

Subtypes of Resistant Hypertension Based on Out-of-Office Blood Pressure Measurement

To the Editor: We read with considerable interest the article by de la Sierra et al1 clarifying the prevalence and clinical features of resistant hypertension based on office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring in a large cohort of treated hypertensive patients in Spain. The prevalence of white-coat resistant hypertension (24-hour ambulatory BP <130/80 mm Hg for systolic/diastolic) and true resistant hypertension (24-hour ambulatory BP ≥130 and/or 80 mm Hg) was 37.5% and 62.5% among patients with uncontrolled office BP (≥140 and/or 90 mm Hg) and taking ≥3 antihypertensive drugs. They also demonstrated a difference in characteristics between white-coat and true resistant hypertension. These findings indicate that physicians …

Prognostic impact of the ambulatory arterial stiffness index in resistant hypertension

The ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI), derived from ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring recordings, is an indirect marker of arterial stiffness and a potential predictor of cardiovascular risk. Resistant hypertension is defined as uncontrolled office BP despite the use of at least three antihypertensive drugs. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the AASI prognostic value in patients with resistant hypertension. At baseline, 547 patients underwent clinical-laboratory, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring examinations. AASI was defined as 1 minus the regression slope of DBP on SBP, and was calculated by standard and symmetric regression. Primary endpoints were a composite of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events and all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. Multiple Cox regression was used to assess associations between AASI and subsequent endpoints. After median follow-up of 4.8 years, 101 patients (18.4%) reached the primary endpoint, and 65 all-cause deaths (11.9%) occurred (45 from cardiovascular causes). 24-h AASI was the best independent predictor of composite endpoint (hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.92, for increments of 1-SD = 0.14), whereas cardiovascular mortality was best predicted by night-time AASI (hazard ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.13-2.65), after adjustments for cardiovascular risk factors, including mean ambulatory BPs and nocturnal BP reduction. Symmetric AASI was not superior to standard AASI. In sensitivity analysis, 24-h AASI was a better predictor of cardiovascular outcomes in women, in younger individuals, and in nondiabetic individuals. AASI is a predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in resistant hypertension, over and beyond traditional risk factors and other ambulatory BP monitoring parameters.

Effective Ambulatory Blood Pressure Control in Medical Practice

A large number of studies has addressed the question of how effective is blood pressure (BP) control in the hypertensive population,1–3 with a consistent and unequivocal answer. That is, BP control is disappointingly low, because only a small fraction of patients diagnosed as having a BP elevation show on-treatment BPs <140 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic, which are the target values for treatment recommended by international guidelines.4,5 This is the case regardless of whether patients are followed by general practitioners or specialists6,7 and have a low or high cardiovascular risk profile,8–10 the latter condition making the need of BP control even more compelling given the imminent risk of a cardiovascular event. Reality is obviously even worse when the lower BP targets that have been shown to be additionally protective in high-risk hypertensive patients, that is, <130/80 mm Hg, are considered.4,5 In a recent study performed in Italy, for example, we have shown that in diabetic (and, thus, high risk) hypertensive patients followed by general practitioners, an on-treatment BP <130/80 mm Hg was achieved in only 3% of the sample,7 the conclusion being that …

Predictors of Controlled Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Treated Hypertensive Patients with Uncontrolled Office Blood Pressure

Although some treated hypertensive patients have controlled 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) despite their uncontrolled office blood pressure (BP), the factors relating to the control of 24-h ABP remain unknown. We conducted a study to assess 24-h ABP and its association with other cardiovascular risk factors, including echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), in elderly hypertensive patients (n =41) with uncontrolled office BP (>140/90 mmHg) during long-term medication. Although a majority of the patients had isolated elevation of office systolic BP (SBP), there was no significant relationship between office SBP and 24-h SBP, and about half of the patients had controlled 24-h ABP (125+/-8/69+/-6 mmHg). Patients with controlled 24-h ABP (125+/-8/69+/-6 mmHg) had similar office BP (150+/-6/77+/-5 vs. 150+/-7/79+/-7 mmHg), but lower left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (123+/-34 vs. 156+/-34 g/m(2)) and body mass index (BMI) (24.4+/-2.1 vs. 26.4+/-3.6 kg/m(2)) compared with those with uncontrolled 24-h ABP (149+/-13/78+/-7 mmHg). Multivariate analysis showed that LVMI and BMI were independently associated with controlled 24-h ABP, and the control status of 24-h ABP was highly dependent on the presence of LVH and obesity. Therefore, absence of LVH and obesity may be useful for predicting the level of control of 24-h ABP in treated patients whose office BP is uncontrolled without ABP measurements.