The Korean journal of internal medicine

The Korean Association of Internal Medicine (대한내과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Discordance between ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure according to global cardiovascular risk group

  • Shin, Jinho (Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Sung Ha (Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Ju Han (Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School) ;
  • Ihm, Sang Hyun (Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Kwang-il (Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Woo Shik (Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine) ;
  • Pyun, Wook Bum (Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Yu-Mi (Department of Preventive Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Sung-il (Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Soon Kil (Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2014.05.19
  • Accepted : 2014.09.04
  • Published : 2015.09.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background/Aims: The detection of white coat hypertension (WCH), treated normalized hypertension, and masked hypertension (MH) is important to improve the effectiveness of hypertension management. However, whether global cardiovascular risk (GCR) profile has any effect on the discordance between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and clinic blood pressure (CBP) is unknown. Methods: Data from 1,916 subjects, taken from the Korean Multicenter Registry for ABP monitoring, were grouped according to diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for CBP and ABP (140/90 and 135/85 mmHg, respectively). GCR was assessed using European Society of Hypertension 2007 guidelines. Results: The mean subject age was $54.1{\pm}14.9years$, and 48.9% of patients were female. The discordancy rate between ABP and CBP in the untreated and treated patients was 32.5% and 26.5%, respectively (p = 0.02). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension and MH was 14.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Discordance between ABP and CBP was lower in the very high added-risk group compared to the moderate added-risk group (odds ratio [OR], 0.649; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487 to 0.863; p = 0.003). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension was also lower in the very high added-risk group (OR, 0.451; 95% CI, 0.311 to 0.655). Conclusions: Discordance between ABP and CBP was observed more frequently in untreated subjects than in treated subjects, and less frequently in the very high added-risk group, which was due mainly to the lower prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension.

Keywords

References

  1. Rothwell PM. Limitations of the usual blood-pressure hypothesis and importance of variability, instability, and episodic hypertension. Lancet 2010;375:938-948. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60309-1
  2. Boggia J, Li Y, Thijs L, et al. Prognostic accuracy of day versus night ambulatory blood pressure: a cohort study. Lancet 2007;370:1219-1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61538-4
  3. Dawes MG, Coats AJ, Juszczak E. Daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure is more effective at predicting mortality than clinic blood pressure. Blood Press Monit 2006;11:111-118. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mbp.0000209086.32493.bd
  4. Dolan E, Stanton A, Thijs L, et al. Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure measurement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension 2005;46:156-161. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.HYP.0000170138.56903.7a
  5. Mesquita-Bastos J, Bertoquini S, Polonia J. Cardiovascular prognostic value of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a Portuguese hypertensive population followed up for 8.2 years. Blood Press Monit 2010;15:240-246. https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0b013e32833c8b08
  6. Kikuya M, Hansen TW, Thijs L, et al. Diagnostic thresholds for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring based on 10-year cardiovascular risk. Circulation 2007;115:2145-2152. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.662254
  7. Thijs L, Hansen TW, Kikuya M, et al. The International Database of Ambulatory Blood Pressure in relation to Cardiovascular Outcome (IDACO): protocol and research perspectives. Blood Press Monit 2007;12:255-262. https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0b013e3280f813bc
  8. National Clinical Guideline Centre. Hypertension: The Clinical Management of Primary Hypertension in Adults: Update of Clinical Guidelines. London: NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence), 2011.
  9. Taylor PJ. Evidence for key recommendation in NICE guidance on hypertension is poor. BMJ 2011;343:d6494. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6494
  10. Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Cavallini C. Ambulatory blood pressure for cardiovascular risk stratification. Circulation 2007;115:2091-2093. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.697086
  11. Staessen J, Fagard R, Lijnen P, Thijs L, van Hoof R, Amery A. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in clinical trials. J Hypertens Suppl 1991;9:S13-S19. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-199112007-00005
  12. European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology Guidelines Committee. 2003 European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 2003;21:1011-1053. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-200306000-00001
  13. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, et al. 2007 Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the task force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2007;25:1105-1187. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e3281fc975a
  14. Park SH, Yoon JS, Won KC, Lee HW. Usefulness of glycated hemoglobin as diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome. J Korean Med Sci 2012;27:1057-1061. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2012.27.9.1057
  15. Franklin SS, Thijs L, Hansen TW, et al. Significance of white-coat hypertension in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: a meta-analysis using the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes population. Hypertension 2012;59:564-571. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.180653
  16. Hwang ES, Choi KJ, Kang DH, et al. Prevalence, predictive factor, and clinical significance of white-coat hypertension and masked hypertension in Korean hypertensive patients. Korean J Intern Med 2007;22:256-262. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2007.22.4.256
  17. Segura J, Banegas JR, Ruilope LM. Usefulness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in daily clinical practice: data from the Spanish ABPM registry. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2014;41:30-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1681.12126
  18. Banegas JR, Ruilope LM, de la Sierra A, et al. High prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension in people with treated hypertension. Eur Heart J 2014;35:3304-3312. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu016
  19. Bobrie G, Clerson P, Menard J, Postel-Vinay N, Chatellier G, Plouin PF. Masked hypertension: a systematic review. J Hypertens 2008;26:1715-1725. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282fbcedf
  20. Yoon HJ, Ahn Y, Park JB, et al. Are metabolic risk factors and target organ damage more frequent in masked hypertension than in white coat hypertension? Clin Exp Hypertens 2010;32:480-485. https://doi.org/10.3109/10641963.2010.496517
  21. Celis H, Fagard RH. White-coat hypertension: a clinical review. Eur J Intern Med 2004;15:348-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2004.08.001
  22. Park SJ, Park JB, Choi DJ, et al. Detection of masked hypertension and the ‘mask effect' in patients with well-controlled office blood pressure. Circ J 2011;75:357-365. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0492
  23. Modolo R, Ruggeri Barbaro N, de Faria AP, et al. The white-coat effect is an independent predictor of myocardial ischemia in resistant hypertension. Blood Press 2014;23:276-280. https://doi.org/10.3109/08037051.2014.883194
  24. Myers MG. Pseudoresistant hypertension attributed to white-coat effect. Hypertension 2012;59:532-533. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.111.189472
  25. Vongpatanasin W. Resistant hypertension: a review of diagnosis and management. JAMA 2014;311:2216-2224. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.5180

Cited by

  1. Detecting masked high blood pressure in high-risk patients vol.30, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2015.30.5.590
  2. Prevalence of resistant hypertension and associated factors for blood pressure control status with optimal medical therapy using Korean ambulatory blood pressure monitoring registry data vol.22, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40885-016-0045-x
  3. 2018 Korean Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension: part I-epidemiology of hypertension vol.25, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40885-019-0121-0
  4. Updated Reasons and Clinical Implications of New Korean Hypertension Guidelines for Cardiologists vol.50, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2019.0338
  5. Clinical features and predictors of masked uncontrolled hypertension from the Korean Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring Registry vol.36, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2020.650