Prognostic influence of office and ambulatory blood pressures in resistant hypertension.

Rua Croton, 72, Jacarepagua, Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brasil, CEP: 22750-240.
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 11.46). 12/2008; 168(21):2340-6. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.168.21.2340
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The prognostic value of office and ambulatory blood pressures (BPs) in patients with resistant hypertension is uncertain.
This prospective study investigates the importance of office and ambulatory BPs as predictors of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. At baseline, 556 resistant hypertensive patients underwent clinical-laboratory and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring examinations. Primary end points were a composite of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events and all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. Multiple Cox regression was used to assess associations between BP and subsequent end points.
After median follow-up of 4.8 years, 109 patients (19.6%) reached the primary end point, and 70 all-cause deaths (12.6%) occurred (46 had cardiovascular causes). After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, smoking, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, previous cardiovascular diseases, serum creatinine level, and number of antihypertensive drugs in use, no office BP showed any prognostic value. After further adjustment for office BP, higher mean ambulatory BPs were independent predictors of the composite end point. The hazard ratios associated with a 1-SD increment in daytime and nighttime systolic BP were 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.53) and 1.38 (1.13-1.68), respectively; the corresponding values for diastolic BP were 1.31 (1.05-1.63) and 1.36 (1.10-1.69). Ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP were equivalent predictors, and both were better than pulse pressure; nighttime BP was superior to daytime BP. For all-cause mortality, only the ambulatory BP monitoring diagnosis of true resistant hypertension was an independent predictor.
Higher ambulatory BP predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in resistant hypertensive patients, whereas office BP has no prognostic value.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hypertension is one of the most popular fields of research in modern medicine due to its high prevalence and its major impact on cardiovascular risk and consequently on global health. Indeed, about one third of individuals worldwide has hypertension and is under increased long-term risk of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death. On the other hand, resistant hypertension, the "uncontrollable" part of arterial hypertension despite appropriate therapy, comprises a much greater menace since long-standing, high levels of blood pressure along with concomitant debilitating entities such as chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus create a prominent high cardiovascular risk milieu. However, despite the alarming consequences, resistant hypertension and its effective management still have not received proper scientific attention. Aspects like the exact prevalence and prognosis are yet to be clarified. In an effort to manage patients with resistant hypertension appropriately, clinical doctors are still racking their brains in order to find the best therapeutic algorithm and surmount the substantial difficulties in controlling this clinical entity. This review aims to shed light on the effective management of resistant hypertension and provide practical recommendations for clinicians dealing with such patients.
    World Journal of Cardiology (WJC) 10/2014; 6(10):1080-90. · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia are major contributors to perinatal morbidity and mortality. The diagnosis of gestational hypertension still relies on conventional clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements and thresholds of ≥140/90 mm Hg for systolic (SBP)/diastolic (DBP) BP. However, the correlation between BP level and target organ damage, cardiovascular disease risk, and long-term prognosis is greater for ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) than clinic BP measurement. Accordingly, ABPM has been suggested as the logical approach to overcoming the low sensitivity and specificity of clinic BP measurements in pregnancy. With the use of ABPM, differing predictable BP patterns throughout gestation have been identified for clinically healthy and hypertensive pregnant women. In normotensive pregnancies, BP steadily decreases up to the middle of gestation and then increases up to the day of delivery. In contrast, women who develop gestational hypertension or preeclampsia show stable BP during the first half of pregnancy and a continuous linear BP increase thereafter until delivery. Epidemiologic studies have also consistently reported sex differences in the 24-h patterns of ambulatory BP and heart rate. Typically, men exhibit a lower heart rate and higher BP than women, the differences being larger for SBP than DBP. Additionally, as early as in the first trimester of gestation, statistically significant increased 24-h SBP and DBP means characterize women complicated with gestational hypertension or preeclampsia compared with women with uncomplicated pregnancies. However, the normally lower BP in nongravid women as compared with men, additional decrease in BP during the second trimester of gestation in normotensive but not in hypertensive pregnant women, and significant differences in the 24-h BP pattern between healthy and complicated pregnancies at all gestational ages have not been taken into consideration when establishing reference BP thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy. Several studies reported that use of the 24-h BP mean is not a proper test for an individualized early diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy defined on the basis of cuff BP measurements, thus concluding that from such an awkward approach ABPM is not useful in pregnancy. The 24-h BP pattern that characterizes healthy pregnant women at all gestational ages suggests the use for diagnosis of a time-specified reference limit reflecting that mostly predictable BP variability. Once the time-varying threshold, given, for instance, by the upper limit of a tolerance interval, is available, the hyperbaric index (HBI), as a determinant of BP excess, can be calculated as the total area of any given subject's BP above the threshold. This tolerance-hyperbaric test, where diagnosis of gestational hypertension is based on the HBI calculated with reference to a time-specified tolerance limit, has been shown to provide high sensitivity and specificity for the early identification of subsequent hypertension in pregnancy, as well as a valuable approach for prediction of pregnancy outcome. ABPM during gestation, starting preferably at the time of the first obstetric check-up following positive confirmation of pregnancy, provides sensitive endpoints for use in early risk assessment and guide for establishing prophylactic or therapeutic intervention, and should thus be regarded as the required standard for the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy. (Author correspondence:
    Chronobiology International 02/2013; 30(1-2). · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Blood Pressure 10/2014; 23(5):256-61. · 1.61 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Aug 20, 2014