BACKGROUND: Masked hypertension (MH) is a risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. However, little is known about the effect of psychosocial stressors on MH. METHODS: Daily interpersonal conflict was examined as a predictor of elevated ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in a community sample of 240 unmedicated black and Latino(a) adults (63% women; mean age 36 years) who had optimal office blood pressure (BP) readings (≤120/80 mm Hg). Electronic diaries were used to assess daily interpersonal conflict (i.e., perceptions of being treated unfairly/harassed during social interactions). Participants rated the degree to which they experienced each interaction as unfair or harassing on a scale of 1-100. Systolic and diastolic ABP (SysABP and DiaABP, respectively) were collected using a validated 24-h ABP monitor. Participants were classified as having marked MH (MMH) if the average of all readings obtained yielded SysABP: ≥135 mm Hg or DiaABP: ≥85 mm Hg. Logistic regression was used to examine whether daily interpersonal conflict is an independent predictor of MMH. RESULTS: This form of MMH (i.e., optimal office BP plus elevated ABP) was present in 21% of participants (n = 50). Those with MMH (vs. without) were significantly more likely to be men (P < 0.001). Daily harassment and unfair treatment scores were significant predictors of MMH group status (P < 0.05). Participants with harassment scores >30 were significantly more likely to be in the MMH group. CONCLUSION: MH may be a concern, even for patients with optimal office BP. Evaluating exposure to psychosocial stressors, including routine levels of interpersonal conflict may help to identify those patients who might benefit from further clinical follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Masked hypertension (MH) is a risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. However, little is known about the effect of psychosocial stressors on MH. METHODS: Daily interpersonal conflict was examined as a predictor of elevated ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in a community sample of 240 unmedicated black and Latino(a) adults (63% women; mean age 36 years) who had optimal office blood pressure (BP) readings (≤120/80 mm Hg). Electronic diaries were used to assess daily interpersonal conflict (i.e., perceptions of being treated unfairly/harassed during social interactions). Participants rated the degree to which they experienced each interaction as unfair or harassing on a scale of 1-100. Systolic and diastolic ABP (SysABP and DiaABP, respectively) were collected using a validated 24-h ABP monitor. Participants were classified as having marked MH (MMH) if the average of all readings obtained yielded SysABP: ≥135 mm Hg or DiaABP: ≥85 mm Hg. Logistic regression was used to examine whether daily interpersonal conflict is an independent predictor of MMH. RESULTS: This form of MMH (i.e., optimal office BP plus elevated ABP) was present in 21% of participants (n = 50). Those with MMH (vs. without) were significantly more likely to be men (P < 0.001). Daily harassment and unfair treatment scores were significant predictors of MMH group status (P < 0.05). Participants with harassment scores >30 were significantly more likely to be in the MMH group. CONCLUSION: MH may be a concern, even for patients with optimal office BP. Evaluating exposure to psychosocial stressors, including routine levels of interpersonal conflict may help to identify those patients who might benefit from further clinical follow-up.
Authors: A J Shallcross; M Butler; R M Tanner; A P Bress; P Muntner; D Shimbo; G Ogedegbe; M Sims; T M Spruill Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: A J Shallcross; M Butler; R M Tanner; A P Bress; P Muntner; D Shimbo; G Ogedegbe; M Sims; T M Spruill Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Daniel N Pugliese; John N Booth; Luqin Deng; D Edmund Anstey; Natalie A Bello; Byron C Jaeger; James M Shikany; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Cora E Lewis; Joseph E Schwartz; Paul Muntner; Daichi Shimbo Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: M Vijayaraghavan; M B Kushel; E Vittinghoff; S Kertesz; D Jacobs; C E Lewis; S Sidney; K Bibbins-Domingo Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Florian Rader; Stanley S Franklin; James Mirocha; Wanpen Vongpatanasin; Robert W Haley; Ronald G Victor Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: John M Ruiz; Daniel J Taylor; Bert N Uchino; Timothy W Smith; Matthew Allison; Chul Ahn; Jillian J Johnson; Joshua M Smyth Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Heba Alwan; Menno Pruijm; Belen Ponte; Daniel Ackermann; Idris Guessous; Georg Ehret; Jan A Staessen; Kei Asayama; Philippe Vuistiner; Sandrine Estoppey Younes; Fred Paccaud; Grégoire Wuerzner; Antoinette Pechere-Bertschi; Markus Mohaupt; Bruno Vogt; Pierre-Yves Martin; Michel Burnier; Murielle Bochud Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240