4.3 Article

The importance of using 24-hour and nighttime blood pressure for the identification of white coat hypertension: Data from the Jackson Heart Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 1176-1182

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jch.13330

关键词

ambulatory blood pressure; home blood pressure monitor; clinical management of high blood pressure (HBP); hypertension in African Americans; hypertensiongeneral; risk assessment

资金

  1. Jackson State University [HHSN268201300049C, HHSN268201300050C]
  2. University of Mississippi Medical Center [HHSN268201300046C, HHSN268201300047C]
  3. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [HHSN268201300048C]
  4. National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD) at the National Institute of Health (NIH) [HHSN268201300048C]
  5. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [2R01 HL117323]
  6. American Heart Association [15SFRN2390002]
  7. [2T32HL007854-21]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We calculated the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) using out-of-clinic blood pressure (BP) in the daytime period; daytime and 24-hour periods; and daytime, 24-hour, and nighttime periods among 199 African Americans with clinic-measured systolic/diastolic BP 140/90mmHg in the Jackson Heart Study. Left ventricular mass index (LVMI) was measured among participants with WCH and 374 participants with sustained normotension (ie, non-hypertensive clinic, daytime, 24-hour, and nighttime BP). The prevalence of WCH was 29.6%, 21.1%, and 10.6% using daytime BP; daytime and 24-hour BP; and daytime, 24-hour, and nighttime BP, respectively. Compared with sustained normotension, LVMI was higher when WCH was defined using daytime BP (adjusted mean difference [95% CI] 5.0 [-0.2, 10.1] g/m(2)), but not when defined using daytime and 24-hour BP or daytime, 24-hour, and nighttime BP (adjusted mean difference [95% CI] 3.9 [-1.9, 9.7] and 0.4 [-7.3,8.2] g/m(2), respectively). Using only daytime BP overestimates the prevalence of WCH among African Americans.

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

4.3
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