4.7 Article

Setting Thresholds to Varying Blood Pressure Monitoring Intervals Differentially Affects Risk Estimates Associated With White-Coat and Masked Hypertension in the Population

Journal

HYPERTENSION
Volume 64, Issue 5, Pages 935-+

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.03614

Keywords

ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; cardiovascular risk; masked hypertension; population science; white-coat hypertension

Funding

  1. European Union [IC15-CT98-0329-EPOGH, LSHM-CT-2006-037093 InGenious HyperCare, HEALTH-F4-2007-201550 HyperGenes, HEALTH-F7-2011-278249 EU-MASCARA, HEALTH-F7-305507 HOMAGE, LSHM-CT-2006-037093, HEALTH-F4-2007-201550]
  2. European Research Council Advanced Research Grant [294713 EPLORE]
  3. Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen, Ministry of the Flemish Community, Brussels, Belgium [G.0734.09, G.0881.13, G.0880.13 N]
  4. Danish Heart Foundation [01-2-9-9A-22914]
  5. Lundbeck Fonden [R32-A2740]
  6. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan [23249036, 23390171, 23790242, 24390084, 24591060, 24790654, 25461205, 25461083, 25860156]
  7. Health Labour Sciences Research Grant from the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, Japan [H23-Junkankitou [Seishuu]-Ippan-005]
  8. Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund
  9. Daiwa Securities Health Foundation
  10. National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing, China [30871360, 30871081, 81170245, 81270373]
  11. Shanghai Commission of Science and Technology [07JC14047]
  12. Shanghai Commission of Science and Technology (Rising Star program) [06QA14043, 11QH1402000]
  13. Shanghai Commission of Education [07ZZ32]
  14. Shanghai Commission of Education (Dawn project) [08SG20]
  15. The Comision Sectorial de Investigacion Cientifica de la Universidad de la Republica (Grant I+D GEFA-HT-UY)
  16. Agencia Nacional de Innovacion e Investigacion
  17. Charles University Research Fund [P36]
  18. National Institute of Aging [1-R01AG036469 A1]
  19. Fogarty International center
  20. FONACIT [G-97000726]
  21. FundaConCiencia [LOCTI/008]
  22. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25253059] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available