4.7 Article

Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension in CKD

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 924-932

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2015030243

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. VA Merit Review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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% (kappa coefficient for agreement, OM 0.51), depending on the definition used. In contrast, home BP showed an agreement of only 63% and a kappa 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.

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