Farhan Bangash1, Rajiv Agarwal. 1. Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Poor hypertension control observed in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) may in part be due to the suboptimal assessment of BP with clinic BP measurements alone. The goal of this meta-analysis was to estimate the prevalence and determinants of white-coat and masked hypertension in the adult CKD population. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Articles reporting prevalence of masked and white-coat hypertension in patients with CKD were obtained from two major databases. We then performed a meta-analysis to derive pooled estimates of prevalence and determinants of these two conditions. RESULTS: Among 980 patients with CKD identified in six studies, the overall prevalence of masked hypertension was 8.3% and of white-coat hypertension was 18.3%. More alarming, 40.4% of patients who had CKD and were thought to have normotension (or adequately treated hypertension) in fact had hypertension at home. Also 30.0% of patients who had CKD and were thought to have hypertension had normotension at home. The thresholds for classification of clinic and ambulatory BP as hypertensive strongly influenced the risk for diagnosis of masked hypertension in favor of white-coat hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Because clinic BP measurements alone lead to substantial misclassification in BP, we estimate that the prevalence of poorly controlled hypertension is likely less than currently estimated. Out-of-office BP monitoring may improve the management of hypertension in patients with CKD. Standardized definitions for the diagnosis of masked and white-coat hypertension would facilitate research.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Poor hypertension control observed in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) may in part be due to the suboptimal assessment of BP with clinic BP measurements alone. The goal of this meta-analysis was to estimate the prevalence and determinants of white-coat and masked hypertension in the adult CKD population. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Articles reporting prevalence of masked and white-coat hypertension in patients with CKD were obtained from two major databases. We then performed a meta-analysis to derive pooled estimates of prevalence and determinants of these two conditions. RESULTS: Among 980 patients with CKD identified in six studies, the overall prevalence of masked hypertension was 8.3% and of white-coat hypertension was 18.3%. More alarming, 40.4% of patients who had CKD and were thought to have normotension (or adequately treated hypertension) in fact had hypertension at home. Also 30.0% of patients who had CKD and were thought to have hypertension had normotension at home. The thresholds for classification of clinic and ambulatory BP as hypertensive strongly influenced the risk for diagnosis of masked hypertension in favor of white-coat hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Because clinic BP measurements alone lead to substantial misclassification in BP, we estimate that the prevalence of poorly controlled hypertension is likely less than currently estimated. Out-of-office BP monitoring may improve the management of hypertension in patients with CKD. Standardized definitions for the diagnosis of masked and white-coat hypertension would facilitate research.
Authors: Denis L Clement; Marc L De Buyzere; Dirk A De Bacquer; Peter W de Leeuw; Daniel A Duprez; Robert H Fagard; Peter J Gheeraert; Luc H Missault; Jacob J Braun; Roland O Six; Patricia Van Der Niepen; Eoin O'Brien Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul E Drawz; Arnold B Alper; Amanda H Anderson; Carolyn S Brecklin; Jeanne Charleston; Jing Chen; Rajat Deo; Michael J Fischer; Jiang He; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Yonghong Huan; Martin G Keane; John W Kusek; Gail K Makos; Edgar R Miller; Elsayed Z Soliman; Susan P Steigerwalt; Jonathan J Taliercio; Raymond R Townsend; Matthew R Weir; Jackson T Wright; Dawei Xie; Mahboob Rahman Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 8.237