Claudia R L Cardoso1, Gil F Salles2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine and University Hospital Clementino Fraga Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Croton, 72, Jacarepaguá, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP: 22750-240, Brazil. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine and University Hospital Clementino Fraga Filho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Croton, 72, Jacarepaguá, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP: 22750-240, Brazil. gilsalles@hucff.ufrj.br.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the current knowledge on the prognostic importance of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring parameters in patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: Although mean 24-h ambulatory BPs have been consistently established as better cardiovascular risk predictors than clinic (office) BPs in several clinical settings, and ambulatory BP monitoring is generally indicated in patients with resistant hypertension; there were only five previous longitudinal prospective studies that specifically evaluated the prognostic importance of ambulatory BP monitoring parameters in resistant hypertensive patients. These studies are carefully reviewed here. In conjunction, they demonstrated that office BP levels have little, if any, prognostic value in resistant hypertensive patients. Otherwise, several ambulatory BP monitoring parameters are strong cardiovascular risk predictors, particularly nighttime sleep BPs and the non-dipping pattern. Most relevant, the ambulatory BP monitoring diagnosis of true resistant hypertension (i.e., patients with uncontrolled ambulatory BPs, either daytime or nighttime) doubled the risk of future occurrence of major cardiovascular events in contrast to patients with white-coat resistant hypertension (i.e., with controlled ambulatory BPs despite uncontrolled office BPs). This review reinforces the pivotal role of serial ambulatory BP monitoring examinations in the clinical management of patients with resistant hypertension.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the current knowledge on the prognostic importance of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring parameters in patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: Although mean 24-h ambulatory BPs have been consistently established as better cardiovascular risk predictors than clinic (office) BPs in several clinical settings, and ambulatory BP monitoring is generally indicated in patients with resistant hypertension; there were only five previous longitudinal prospective studies that specifically evaluated the prognostic importance of ambulatory BP monitoring parameters in resistant hypertensivepatients. These studies are carefully reviewed here. In conjunction, they demonstrated that office BP levels have little, if any, prognostic value in resistant hypertensivepatients. Otherwise, several ambulatory BP monitoring parameters are strong cardiovascular risk predictors, particularly nighttime sleep BPs and the non-dipping pattern. Most relevant, the ambulatory BP monitoring diagnosis of true resistant hypertension (i.e., patients with uncontrolled ambulatory BPs, either daytime or nighttime) doubled the risk of future occurrence of major cardiovascular events in contrast to patients with white-coat resistant hypertension (i.e., with controlled ambulatory BPs despite uncontrolled office BPs). This review reinforces the pivotal role of serial ambulatory BP monitoring examinations in the clinical management of patients with resistant hypertension.
Authors: Alexandre Alessi; Andrea Araújo Brandão; Antonio Coca; Antonio Carlos Cordeiro; Antonio Cordeiro; Armando da Rocha Nogueira; Feitosa Diógenes de Magalhães; Audes Feitosa; Celso Amodeo; Cibele Isaac Saad Rodrigues; Cibele Rodrigues; David A Calhoun; David Calhoun; Eduardo Barbosa Coelho; Eduardo Barbosa; Eduardo Pimenta; Elizabeth Muxfeldt; Fernanda Marciano Consolin-Colombo; Fernanda Consolin-Colombo; Gil Salles; Guido Rosito; Heitor Moreno; Jose Fernando Vilela Martin; Juan Carlos Yugar; Luiz Aparecido Bortolotto; Luiz Bortolotto; Luíz Cesar Nazário Scala; Luís Cesar Nazário Scala; Márcio Gonçalves de Sousa; Márcio de Souza; Marco Antonio Mota Gomes; Marcus Bolivar Malachias; Miguel Gus; Oswaldo Passarelli; Paulo César Veiga Jardim; Paulo Roberto Toscano; Ramiro A Sánchez; Ramiro Sanchez; Roberto Dischinger Miranda; Roberto D Miranda; Rui Póvoa; Weimar Kunz Sebba Barroso Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Oliver Jung; Janis L Gechter; Cora Wunder; Alexander Paulke; Christine Bartel; Helmut Geiger; Stefan W Toennes Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Elizabeth S Muxfeldt; Guilherme S Barros; Bianca B Viegas; Fernanda O Carlos; Gil F Salles Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Ramón C Hermida; Diana E Ayala; María T Ríos; José R Fernández; Artemio Mojón; Michael H Smolensky Journal: Curr Hypertens Rep Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.369
Authors: Khafsa Malik; Mushtaq Ahmad; Rainer W Bussmann; Akash Tariq; Riaz Ullah; Ali S Alqahtani; Abdelaaty A Shahat; Neelam Rashid; Muhammad Zafar; Shazia Sultana; Syed N Shah Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 5.810