4.6 Article

Gender Differences in Office and Ambulatory Control of Hypertension

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 121, Issue 12, Pages 1078-1084

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.06.037

Keywords

Ambulatory blood pressure; Control; Office blood pressure; Sex; Treatment goals

Funding

  1. Lacer Spain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in hypertension control have not been explored fully. METHODS: We studied 15,212 white men and 13,936 white women with treated hypertension who were drawn from the Spanish Ambulatory Blood Pressure Registry. For each participant, we obtained office blood pressure (BP) (average of 2 readings) and 24-hour ambulatory BP (average of measurements performed every 20 minutes during day and night). RESULTS: Only 16.4% of women and 14.7% of men had both office (<140/90 mm Hg) and ambulatory (<130/80 mm Hg) BP controlled (P < .001). Women had a lower frequency of masked hypertension (office BP < 140/90 mm Hg and ambulatory BP >= 130/80 mm Hg) than men (5.9% vs 7.9%, P < .001). Women had a higher frequency of isolated office hypertension (office BP >= 140/90 mm Hg and ambulatory BP < 130/80 mm Hg) (32.5% vs 24.2%, P < .001). Although office BP control (office BP < 140/90 mm Hg, regardless of ambulatory values) was similar in women and men (22.3% vs 22.6%, P = .542), ambulatory BP control (ambulatory BP < 130/80 mm Hg, regardless of office values) was higher in women than in men (48.9% vs 38.9%, P < .001). After adjustment for age, number of antihypertensive drugs, hypertension duration, and risk factors, gender differences in BP control remained practically unchanged. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory BP control was higher in women than in men. This may be due to the higher frequency of isolated office hypertension in women, and it is not explained by gender differences in other important clinical characteristics. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. . The American Journal of Medicine (2008) 121, 1078-1084

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available