4.6 Article

Prediction of Masked Uncontrolled Hypertension Detected by Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12123156

关键词

ambulatory blood pressure; classification; hypertension; masked; prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to provide prediction models for masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring in an Italian population. The study found that males, smokers, left ventricular hypertrophy, and high-normal clinic blood pressure are indicators of MUCH, and the models including these factors have good diagnostic accuracy.
The aim of this study was to provide prediction models for masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring in an Italian population. We studied 738 treated hypertensive patients with normal clinic BPs classified as having controlled hypertension (CH) or MUCH if their daytime BP was < or >= 135/85 mmHg regardless of nighttime BP, respectively, or CH or MUCH if their 24-h BP was < or >= 130/80 mmHg regardless of daytime or nighttime BP, respectively. We detected 215 (29%) and 275 (37%) patients with MUCH using daytime and 24-h BP thresholds, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that males, those with a smoking habit, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), and a clinic systolic BP between 130-139 mmHg and/or clinic diastolic BP between 85-89 mmHg were associated with MUCH. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve showed good accuracy at 0.78 (95% CI 0.75-0.81, p < 0.0001) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.73-0.80, p < 0.0001) for MUCH defined by daytime and 24 h BP, respectively. Internal validation suggested a good predictive performance of the models. Males, those with a smoking habit, LVH, and high-normal clinic BP are indicators of MUCH and models including these factors provide good diagnostic accuracy in identifying this ambulatory BP phenotype.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据