BACKGROUND: White-coat hypertension and masked hypertension have clinical and prognostic consequences. However, reproducibility of these phenomena is unknown. We examined the reproducibility of the white-coat and masking effects with real-life ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of a prospectively assembled ABPM database there were 196 subjects (age 58+/-16 years, 59% female, 73% treated for hypertension) who underwent repeat ABPM for standard clinical indications. White-coat hypertension (or isolated manual uncontrolled hypertension) was defined as normal (<135/85 mmHg) awake blood pressure (BP) and abnormal (>or=140/90 mmHg) manual BP. Masked hypertension (or isolated ambulatory uncontrolled hypertension) was defined as abnormal awake BP with normal manual BP. RESULTS: Treated and untreated subjects had similar distribution among hypertension subgroups; 16% white-coat hypertension (in treated subjects, isolated manual uncontrolled hypertension), 13% masked hypertension (in treated subjects, isolated ambulatory uncontrolled hypertension), 59% uncontrolled hypertension, 12% normal blood pressure (or controlled hypertension). In the second session the prevalence of white-coat and masked hypertension increased. Of 31 subjects with white-coat hypertension in the first session 19 (61%) remained ambulatory normotensive in the second session, while 18 of 25 (72%) masked hypertensive subjects remained ambulatory hypertensive. The reproducibility of the systolic manual-awake blood pressure difference was not inferior to that of other ambulatory variables. In untreated subjects the reproducibility of white-coat hypertension, masked hypertension and the white-coat effect was even better. CONCLUSION: In a real-life ABPM database, we found white-coat hypertension and the masking phenomenon to be reasonably reproducible, as compared to other BP variables.
BACKGROUND:White-coat hypertension and masked hypertension have clinical and prognostic consequences. However, reproducibility of these phenomena is unknown. We examined the reproducibility of the white-coat and masking effects with real-life ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of a prospectively assembled ABPM database there were 196 subjects (age 58+/-16 years, 59% female, 73% treated for hypertension) who underwent repeat ABPM for standard clinical indications. White-coat hypertension (or isolated manual uncontrolled hypertension) was defined as normal (<135/85 mmHg) awake blood pressure (BP) and abnormal (>or=140/90 mmHg) manual BP. Masked hypertension (or isolated ambulatory uncontrolled hypertension) was defined as abnormal awake BP with normal manual BP. RESULTS: Treated and untreated subjects had similar distribution among hypertension subgroups; 16% white-coat hypertension (in treated subjects, isolated manual uncontrolled hypertension), 13% masked hypertension (in treated subjects, isolated ambulatory uncontrolled hypertension), 59% uncontrolled hypertension, 12% normal blood pressure (or controlled hypertension). In the second session the prevalence of white-coat and masked hypertension increased. Of 31 subjects with white-coat hypertension in the first session 19 (61%) remained ambulatory normotensive in the second session, while 18 of 25 (72%) masked hypertensive subjects remained ambulatory hypertensive. The reproducibility of the systolic manual-awake blood pressure difference was not inferior to that of other ambulatory variables. In untreated subjects the reproducibility of white-coat hypertension, masked hypertension and the white-coat effect was even better. CONCLUSION: In a real-life ABPM database, we found white-coat hypertension and the masking phenomenon to be reasonably reproducible, as compared to other BP variables.
Authors: Paul Muntner; Paula T Einhorn; William C Cushman; Paul K Whelton; Natalie A Bello; Paul E Drawz; Beverly B Green; Daniel W Jones; Stephen P Juraschek; Karen L Margolis; Edgar R Miller; Ann Marie Navar; Yechiam Ostchega; Michael K Rakotz; Bernard Rosner; Joseph E Schwartz; Daichi Shimbo; George S Stergiou; Raymond R Townsend; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright; Lawrence J Appel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Anthony J Viera; Feng-Chang Lin; Laura A Tuttle; Emily Olsson; Kristin Stankevitz; Susan S Girdler; J Larry Klein; Alan L Hinderliter Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Adamasco Cupisti; R M Bruno; A Puntoni; E Varricchio; E Giglio; O Meniconi; C Zullo; M Barsotti; M F Egidi; L Ghiadoni Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Alejandro de la Sierra; Ernest Vinyoles; José R Banegas; Gianfranco Parati; Juan J de la Cruz; Manuel Gorostidi; Julián Segura; Luis M Ruilope Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Stanley S Franklin; Lutgarde Thijs; Yan Li; Tine W Hansen; José Boggia; Yanping Liu; Kei Asayama; Kristina Björklund-Bodegård; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Jørgen Jeppesen; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Eamon Dolan; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek; Valérie Tikhonoff; Sofia Malyutina; Edoardo Casiglia; Yuri Nikitin; Lars Lind; Edgardo Sandoya; Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz; Jan Filipovsky; Yutaka Imai; Jiguang Wang; Hans Ibsen; Eoin O'Brien; Jan A Staessen Journal: Hypertension Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 10.190