Anthony J Viera1, Feng-Chang Lin, Laura A Tuttle, Emily Olsson, Kristin Stankevitz, Susan S Girdler, J Larry Klein, Alan L Hinderliter. 1. Departments of aFamily Medicine bMedicine - Division of Cardiology cPsychiatry, University of North Carolina School of Medicine dHypertension Research Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill eDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Masked hypertension (MH) refers to nonelevated office blood pressure (BP) with elevated out-of-office BP, but its reproducibility has not been conclusively established. We examined 1-week reproducibility of MH by home BP monitoring (HBPM) and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). METHODS: We recruited 420 adults not on BP-lowering medication, with recent clinic BP between 120/80 and 149/95 mmHg. For main comparisons, participants with office average less than 140/90 mmHg were considered to have MH if awake ABPM average was 135/85 mmHg or higher; they were considered to have MH by HBPM if the average was 135/85 mmHg or higher. Percentage agreements were quantified in terms of κ. We also examined the prevalence of MH, defined as office average less than 140/90 mmHg, with a 24-h ABPM average of 130/80 mmHg or higher. We carried out sensitivity analyses using different threshold BP levels for ABPM-office pairings and HBPM-office pairings for defining MH. RESULTS: Prevalence rates of MH based on office-awake ABPM pairings were 44 and 43%, with an agreement of 71% (κ=0.40; 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.49). MH was less prevalent (15 and 17%) using HBPM-office pairings, with agreement of 82% (κ=0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.44), and more prevalent when considering the 24-h average (50 and 48%). MH was also less prevalent when more stringent diagnostic criteria were applied. Office-HBPM pairings and office-awake ABPM pairings had fair agreement on MH classification on both occasions, with κ-values of 0.36 and 0.30. CONCLUSION: MH has fair short-term reproducibility, providing further evidence that for some people, out-of-office BP is systematically higher than that measured in the office setting.
OBJECTIVE: Masked hypertension (MH) refers to nonelevated office blood pressure (BP) with elevated out-of-office BP, but its reproducibility has not been conclusively established. We examined 1-week reproducibility of MH by home BP monitoring (HBPM) and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). METHODS: We recruited 420 adults not on BP-lowering medication, with recent clinic BP between 120/80 and 149/95 mmHg. For main comparisons, participants with office average less than 140/90 mmHg were considered to have MH if awake ABPM average was 135/85 mmHg or higher; they were considered to have MH by HBPM if the average was 135/85 mmHg or higher. Percentage agreements were quantified in terms of κ. We also examined the prevalence of MH, defined as office average less than 140/90 mmHg, with a 24-h ABPM average of 130/80 mmHg or higher. We carried out sensitivity analyses using different threshold BP levels for ABPM-office pairings and HBPM-office pairings for defining MH. RESULTS: Prevalence rates of MH based on office-awake ABPM pairings were 44 and 43%, with an agreement of 71% (κ=0.40; 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.49). MH was less prevalent (15 and 17%) using HBPM-office pairings, with agreement of 82% (κ=0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.44), and more prevalent when considering the 24-h average (50 and 48%). MH was also less prevalent when more stringent diagnostic criteria were applied. Office-HBPM pairings and office-awake ABPM pairings had fair agreement on MH classification on both occasions, with κ-values of 0.36 and 0.30. CONCLUSION: MH has fair short-term reproducibility, providing further evidence that for some people, out-of-office BP is systematically higher than that measured in the office setting.
Authors: Martin G Myers; Marshall Godwin; Martin Dawes; Alexander Kiss; Sheldon W Tobe; Janusz Kaczorowski Journal: Hypertension Date: 2009-12-28 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: R Sega; G Trocino; A Lanzarotti; S Carugo; G Cesana; R Schiavina; F Valagussa; M Bombelli; C Giannattasio; A Zanchetti; G Mancia Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-09-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Wanpen Vongpatanasin; Colby Ayers; Hamza Lodhi; Sandeep R Das; Jarett D Berry; Amit Khera; Ronald G Victor; Feng-Chang Lin; Anthony J Viera; Yuichiro Yano; James A de Lemos Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Joseph E Schwartz; Matthew M Burg; Daichi Shimbo; Joan E Broderick; Arthur A Stone; Joji Ishikawa; Richard Sloan; Tyla Yurgel; Steven Grossman; Thomas G Pickering Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Laura P Cohen; Joseph E Schwartz; Daniel N Pugliese; D Edmund Anstey; Jessica P Christian; Stephanie Jou; Paul Muntner; Daichi Shimbo; Natalie A Bello Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Samantha G Bromfield; Daichi Shimbo; John N Booth; Adolfo Correa; Gbenga Ogedegbe; April P Carson; Paul Muntner Journal: Hypertension Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 10.190