Claudia Palomba1, Simone Donadio1, Grazia Canciello1,2, Maria Angela Losi1,2, Raffaele Izzo1,2, Maria Virginia Manzi1,2, Federica De Pisapia1,2, Costantino Mancusi3,4, Nicola De Luca1,2. 1. Hypertension Research Center, Federico II University Hospital, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. 2. Department of Advanced Biomedical Science, Federico II University Hospital, Naples, Italy. 3. Hypertension Research Center, Federico II University Hospital, Via S. Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy. costantino.mancusi@unina.it. 4. Department of Advanced Biomedical Science, Federico II University Hospital, Naples, Italy. costantino.mancusi@unina.it.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The ESC-2018 guidelines suggest the use of Unattended automated office blood pressure (UAOBP) to avoid or at least reduce the white coat effect, even if do not support its use as preferred method. AIM: To assess the pressure difference between UAOBP and Attended office blood pressure (AOBP) and to evaluate their correlations with target organ damage in hypertensive patients. METHODS: UAOBP and AOBP were taken in a cohort of 48 outpatients. The pressure difference between the 2 methods and their correlation with anthropometric and cardiac parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Unattended systolic and diastolic BP were lower than Attended systolic and diastolic BP (135 ± 17 mmHg vs 139 ± 21 mmHg and 79 ± 10 mmHg vs 82 ± 10 mmg). ΔDBP was significantly directly correlated with female sex (r = 0.347, p = 0.016) and it was lower in men compared to women (0.11 ± 8.9 mmHg vs 6.07 ± 7.42 mmHg, p = 0.016). Correlation coefficients for LVMi and RWT for attended and unattended BP were not statistically different (for LVMi r = 0.286 vs r = 0.381, p = 0.61, for RWT r = 0.413 vs r = 0.363, p = 0.78). The relationship between attended and unattended BP was described by the following equation: y = - 4.68 + 1.06*x; where Y is the attended systolic BP and X is the unattended systolic BP; in accordance with this equation, an unattended systolic BP of 140 mmHg corresponds to an attended systolic BP of 143.7 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: UAOBP provides significantly lower values than AOBP. The difference in BP values between the two methods is much lower than the one obtained in most clinical studies.
INTRODUCTION: The ESC-2018 guidelines suggest the use of Unattended automated office blood pressure (UAOBP) to avoid or at least reduce the white coat effect, even if do not support its use as preferred method. AIM: To assess the pressure difference between UAOBP and Attended office blood pressure (AOBP) and to evaluate their correlations with target organ damage in hypertensivepatients. METHODS:UAOBP and AOBP were taken in a cohort of 48 outpatients. The pressure difference between the 2 methods and their correlation with anthropometric and cardiac parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Unattended systolic and diastolic BP were lower than Attended systolic and diastolic BP (135 ± 17 mmHg vs 139 ± 21 mmHg and 79 ± 10 mmHg vs 82 ± 10 mmg). ΔDBP was significantly directly correlated with female sex (r = 0.347, p = 0.016) and it was lower in men compared to women (0.11 ± 8.9 mmHg vs 6.07 ± 7.42 mmHg, p = 0.016). Correlation coefficients for LVMi and RWT for attended and unattended BP were not statistically different (for LVMi r = 0.286 vs r = 0.381, p = 0.61, for RWT r = 0.413 vs r = 0.363, p = 0.78). The relationship between attended and unattended BP was described by the following equation: y = - 4.68 + 1.06*x; where Y is the attended systolic BP and X is the unattended systolic BP; in accordance with this equation, an unattended systolic BP of 140 mmHg corresponds to an attended systolic BP of 143.7 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS:UAOBP provides significantly lower values than AOBP. The difference in BP values between the two methods is much lower than the one obtained in most clinical studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arterial hypertension; Cardiac target organ damage; Unattended automated office blood pressure; White coat effect
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: Félix Rinfret; Lyne Cloutier; Hélène L'Archevêque; Martine Gauthier; Mikhael Laskine; Pierre Larochelle; Monica Ilinca; Leora Birnbaum; Nathalie Ng Cheong; Robert Wistaff; Paul Van Nguyen; Ghislaine Roederer; Michel Bertrand; Maxime Lamarre-Cliche Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Emmanuel A Andreadis; Vasilios Papademetriou; Charalampia V Geladari; George N Kolyvas; Epameinondas T Angelopoulos; Konstantinos N Aronis Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2017-02-03
Authors: Frederic Bauer; Felix S Seibert; Benjamin Rohn; Klaus A R Bauer; Eckart Rolshoven; Nina Babel; Timm H Westhoff Journal: Hypertension Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 10.190