Philip K Johnson1,2, Michael A Ferguson1,3, Justin P Zachariah4. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass, USA. 2. Department of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Mass, USA. 3. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Mass, USA. 4. Section of Pediatric Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Tex, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Since younger patients have low pretest probability of hypertension and are susceptible to reactive and masked hypertension, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) can be useful. To better target use in referred patients, we sought to define in-clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) measures that predicted normal ABPM and target end organ damage. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were collected on consecutive patients referred for high BP undergoing an ambulatory BP monitor from 2010 to 2013 (n = 248, 33.9% female, mean age 15.5 ± 3.6 years). Candidate in-clinic predictors were systolic maximum, minimum, or average BPs obtained by auscultative, oscillometric, or both. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the prediction of normal ABPM by in-clinic BP predictors. Separate models considered predicting left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) by in-clinic SBP vs. ABPM-defined hypertension. Identified predictor utility was tested with receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: Maximum (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.94-0.99]; P = .047), minimum (0.96 [0.94-0.99]; P = .002), and average (0.97 [0.95-1.00]; P = .04) in-clinic auscultative SBP predicted normal ABPM. Each had a c-statistic of 0.58. LVH was associated with in-clinic auscultative minimum SBP treated continuously (1.05, [1.01-1.10], P = .01) or dichotomized at the 90th percentile (8.23, [1.48-45.80], P = .02), as well as ABPM-defined hypertension (3.31, [1.23-8.91], P = .02). Both predictors had poor sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSION: In youth, normal auscultative in-clinic systolic blood pressure indices weakly predicted normal ambulatory blood pressure and target end organ damage.
OBJECTIVE: Since younger patients have low pretest probability of hypertension and are susceptible to reactive and masked hypertension, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) can be useful. To better target use in referred patients, we sought to define in-clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) measures that predicted normal ABPM and target end organ damage. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were collected on consecutive patients referred for high BP undergoing an ambulatory BP monitor from 2010 to 2013 (n = 248, 33.9% female, mean age 15.5 ± 3.6 years). Candidate in-clinic predictors were systolic maximum, minimum, or average BPs obtained by auscultative, oscillometric, or both. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the prediction of normal ABPM by in-clinic BP predictors. Separate models considered predicting left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) by in-clinic SBP vs. ABPM-defined hypertension. Identified predictor utility was tested with receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: Maximum (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.94-0.99]; P = .047), minimum (0.96 [0.94-0.99]; P = .002), and average (0.97 [0.95-1.00]; P = .04) in-clinic auscultative SBP predicted normal ABPM. Each had a c-statistic of 0.58. LVH was associated with in-clinic auscultative minimum SBP treated continuously (1.05, [1.01-1.10], P = .01) or dichotomized at the 90th percentile (8.23, [1.48-45.80], P = .02), as well as ABPM-defined hypertension (3.31, [1.23-8.91], P = .02). Both predictors had poor sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSION: In youth, normal auscultative in-clinic systolic blood pressure indices weakly predicted normal ambulatory blood pressure and target end organ damage.
Keywords:
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring; Blood Pressure; Hypertension; Left Ventricular Hypertrophy; Target End Organ Damage; White Coat Hypertension
Authors: Paul W Franks; Robert L Hanson; William C Knowler; Maurice L Sievers; Peter H Bennett; Helen C Looker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian K Kit; Elena Kuklina; Margaret D Carroll; Yechiam Ostchega; David S Freedman; Cynthia L Ogden Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; John E Hall; Lawrence J Appel; Bonita E Falkner; John Graves; Martha N Hill; Daniel W Jones; Theodore Kurtz; Sheldon G Sheps; Edward J Roccella Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Samuel S Gidding; Kiang Liu; Laura A Colangelo; Nakela L Cook; David C Goff; Stephen P Glasser; Julius M Gardin; Joao A C Lima Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Jonna Juhola; Costan G Magnussen; Gerald S Berenson; Alison Venn; Trudy L Burns; Matthew A Sabin; Sathanur R Srinivasan; Stephen R Daniels; Patricia H Davis; Wei Chen; Mika Kähönen; Leena Taittonen; Elaine Urbina; Jorma S A Viikari; Terence Dwyer; Olli T Raitakari; Markus Juonala Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gilad Hamdani; Joseph T Flynn; Richard C Becker; Stephen R Daniels; Bonita Falkner; Coral D Hanevold; Julie R Ingelfinger; Marc B Lande; Lisa J Martin; Kevin E Meyers; Mark Mitsnefes; Bernard Rosner; Joshua A Samuels; Elaine M Urbina Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 10.190