Abstract
BACKGROUND
Prognosis of masked and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH and WCUCH, respectively) detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring is incompletely clear in elderly ...treated hypertensive patients. We evaluated prognosis of MUCH and WCUCH identified by ambulatory BP monitoring in this setting.
METHODS
The occurrence of a composite endpoint was evaluated in 1,191 elderly treated hypertensive patients. Controlled hypertension (CH) was defined as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP <130/80 mm Hg, MUCH as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP ≥130 and/or ≥80 mm Hg, WCUCH as clinic BP ≥140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP <130/80 mm Hg and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH) as clinic BP ≥140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP ≥130 and/or ≥80 mm Hg.
RESULTS
MUCH was identified in 142 patients (12% of all the population, 34% of those with normal clinic BP) and WCUCH in 230 patients (19% of all the population, 30% of those with high clinic BP). During the follow-up (9.1 ± 4.9 years, range 0.4–20 years), 392 events occurred. After adjustment for various covariates, patients with MUCH (hazard ratio (HR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12–2.29, P = 0.01) and SUCH (HR 1.81, 95% CI, 1.35–2.42, P < 0.001) had significantly higher cardiovascular risk than those with CH, whereas those with WCUCH (HR 1.09, 95% CI, 0.74–1.60, P = 0.66) had not significantly higher risk.
CONCLUSIONS
In elderly treated hypertensive patients evaluated by ambulatory BP monitoring, compared to individuals with CH, those with MUCH have significantly higher risk and those with WCUCH have slightly and not significantly higher risk.
The independent prognostic significance of circadian blood pressure (BP) changes is unclear. We investigated the association between circadian BP changes and cardiovascular risk among elderly-treated ...hypertensive patients. The occurrence of a composite end point (that is, stroke, coronary events, heart failure and peripheral revascularization) was evaluated among 1191 elderly-treated hypertensive patients (age range 60-90 years). According to the nighttime change and the morning surge (MS) of systolic BP, subjects were divided into groups of dippers with a normal or high MS (DNMS and DHMS, respectively), non-dippers (ND), reverse dippers (RD) and extreme dippers with a normal or high MS (EDNMS and EDHMS, respectively). During the follow-up (9.1±4.9 years, range 0.4-20 years), 392 events occurred. The event rate was 3.63 per 100 patient-years. After adjustment for various covariates, including 24-h BP, the DHMS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.16, P=0.04), ND (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28-2.27, P=0.0001), RD (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.44-2.93, P=0.0001) and EDHMS (HR 3.40, 95% CI 1.96-5.90, P=0.001) were at higher cardiovascular risk than the DNMS. The population attributable risk was 0.6, 7.1, 7.3 and 1.4% for the DHMS, ND, RD and EDHMS, respectively. In elderly-treated hypertensive patients, circadian BP changes were independently associated with increased cardiovascular risk. At the patient level, the highest risk was observed among the EDHMS, followed by the RD, ND and DHMS. At the population level, the highest risk was observed among the RD, followed by the ND, EDHMS and DHMS.
After adjustment for confounders, compared to dippers, in global nondippers and reverse dippers evaluated separately, the hazard ratio for total cardiovascular events was 1.17 (95% confidence ...interval, 0.77-1.76) and 1.17 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-2.02), respectively, and the hazard ratio for coronary events was 1.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-2.14) and 1.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-2.78), respectively. ...in this population nondippers and reverse dippers were at increased risk of total cardiovascular events and coronary events, when compared to dippers, but not significantly. Globally, the findings of the present study 15 are substantially in contrast with previous meta-analyses. 8,11,13 We try to explain these discrepancies. 1) Included patients were those referred for suspected white coat hypertension, hypertension with white coat component, or refractory hypertension, and subjects with obstructive sleep apnea, in whom nondipping tends to be more frequent, were excluded. ...only patients with specific characteristics were enrolled. Future studies with similar recruitment criteria, methodological aspects, cardiovascular end points, statistical approach and of adequate power should be performed to investigate potential differences among ethnic groups. ...the jigsaw puzzle of the prognostic value of the nocturnal BP pattern has yet to be completed.
BACKGROUND
The independent prognostic significance of morning surge (MS) of blood pressure (BP) is not yet clear. We investigated the association between MS of systolic BP and risk of coronary events ...in elderly treated hypertensive patients.
METHODS
The occurrence of coronary events was evaluated in 1,191 elderly treated hypertensive patients (age range 60–90 years). Subjects were divided according to tertiles of MS of systolic BP of the population as a whole, by dipping status and by group-specific tertiles of MS of systolic BP in dippers and nondippers.
RESULTS
During the follow-up (9.1±4.9 years, range 0.4–20 years), 120 coronary events occurred. In the population as a whole, coronary event risk was not significantly associated with tertiles of MS of systolic BP, whereas nondippers were at higher risk than dippers. When nondippers and dippers were analyzed separately, by group-specific tertiles of MS of systolic BP, coronary event risk was associated with MS of systolic BP in dippers but not in nondippers. After adjustment for various covariates, Cox regression analysis showed that dippers in the third tertile (>23mm Hg) of MS of systolic BP (hazard ratio 1.912, 95% confidence interval 1.048–3.488, P = 0.03) and nondippers (hazard ratio 1.739, 95% confidence interval 1.074–2.815, P = 0.02) were at higher coronary event risk than dippers with MS of systolic BP <23mm Hg .
CONCLUSIONS
In elderly treated hypertensive patients, high MS of systolic BP predicts coronary events in dippers but not in nondippers. Nondippers, however, show higher risk of coronary events independently of MS in systolic BP.
The aim of this study was to perform a meta‐analysis of studies evaluating the association of clinic and daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h blood pressure with the occurrence of new‐onset atrial ...fibrillation. We conducted a literature search through PubMed, Web of science, and Cochrane Library for articles evaluating the occurrence of new‐onset atrial fibrillation in relation to the above‐mentioned blood pressure parameters and reporting adjusted hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval. We identified five studies. The pooled population consisted of 7224 patients who experienced 444 cases of atrial fibrillation. The overall adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.05 (0.98‐1.13), 1.19 (1.11‐1.27), 1.18 (1.11‐1.26), and 1.23 (1.14‐1.32), per 10‐mmHg increment in clinic, daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic blood pressure, respectively. The degree of heterogeneity of the hazard ratio estimates across the studies (Q and I‐squared statistics) were minimal. The results of this meta‐analysis strongly suggest that ambulatory systolic blood pressure prospectively predicts incident atrial fibrillation better than does clinic systolic blood pressure and that daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic blood pressure are similarly associated with future atrial fibrillation.
Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is at higher cardiovascular risk than controlled hypertension (CH). In previous studies, patients with MUCH were considered as a unique group though those ...receiving ≤2 drugs could be defined as having nonresistant MUCH (NRMUCH) and those receiving ≥3 drugs as having resistant MUCH (RMUCH). The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of NRMUCH and RMUCH detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Cardiovascular risk was evaluated in 738 treated hypertensive patients with normal clinic BP. Patients were classified as having CH or MUCH if daytime BP < or ≥ 135/85 mmHg, respectively, regardless of nighttime BP, or CH or MUCH if 24‐h BP < or ≥ 130/80 mmHg, respectively, regardless of daytime or nighttime BP. By daytime or 24‐h BP, the authors detected 523 (71%), 178 (24%), and 37 (5%) or 463 (63%), 231 (31%), and 44 (6%) patients with CH, NRMUCH, and RMUCH, respectively. During the follow‐up (median 10 years), 148 events occurred. After adjustment for covariates, compared to CH, the hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI), for cardiovascular events was 1.81, 1.27–2.57, and 2.99, 1.73–5.16, in NRMUCH and RMUCH defined by daytime BP, respectively, and 1.58, 1.12–2.23, and 2.21, 1.27–3.82, in NRMUCH and RMUCH defined by 24‐h BP, respectively. If RMUCH was compared with NRMUCH, the risk tended to be higher in RMUCH but did not attain statistical significance (P = .08 and P = .23 by daytime and 24‐h BP thresholds, respectively). In conclusion, both NRMUCH and RMUCH are at increased cardiovascular risk than CH.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) on the occurrence of new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in treated hypertensive patients. We studied ...2135 sequential treated hypertensive patients aged >40 years. During the follow‐up (mean 9.7 years, range 0.4–20 years), 116 events (new‐onset AF) occurred. In univariate analysis, clinic, daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP were all significantly associated with increased risk of new‐onset AF, that is, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) per 10 mm Hg increment 1.22 (1.11–1.35), 1.36 (1.21–1.53), 1.42 (1.29–1.57), and 1.42 (1.26–1.60), respectively. After adjustment for various covariates in multivariate analysis, clinic systolic BP was no longer associated with increased risk of new‐onset AF, whereas daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP remained significantly associated with outcome, that is, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) per 10 mm Hg increment 1.09 (0.97–1.23), 1.23 (1.10–1.39), 1.16 (1.03–1.31), and 1.22 (1.06–1.40), respectively. Daytime, nighttime, and 24‐h systolic BP are superior to clinic systolic BP in predicting new‐onset AF in treated hypertensive patients. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether a better control of ambulatory BP might be helpful in reducing the occurrence of new‐onset AF.
(1) Background: The aim of the study was to assess the risk of heart failure (HF) in elderly treated hypertensive patients with white coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH), ambulatory nonresistant ...hypertension (ANRH) and ambulatory resistant hypertension (ARH), when compared to those with controlled hypertension (CH). (2) We studied 745 treated hypertensive subjects older than 65 years. CH was defined as clinic blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg and 24-h BP < 130/80 mmHg; WUCH was defined as clinic BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg and 24-h BP < 130/80 mmHg; ANRH was defined as 24-h BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg in patients receiving ≤2 antihypertensive drugs; ARH was defined as 24-h BP ≥ 130/80 mmHg in patients receiving ≥3 antihypertensive drugs. (3) Results: 153 patients had CH, 153 had WUCH, 307 had ANRH and 132 (18%) had ARH. During the follow-up (8.4 ± 4.8 years), 82 HF events occurred. After adjustment for various covariates, when compared to CH, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for HF was 1.30 (0.51-3.32), 2.14 (1.03-4.43) and 3.52 (1.56-7.96) in WUCH, ANRH and ARH, respectively. (4) Conclusions: among elderly treated hypertensive patients, those with ARH are at a considerably higher risk of developing HF when compared to CH.
(1) Background: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of 24-hour pulse pressure (PP), elastic PP (elPP) and stiffening PP (stPP) in elderly treated hypertensive patients; (2) ...Methods: In this retrospective study, we evaluated 745 treated hypertensive subjects older than 65 years who underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess 24-hour PP and 24-hour elPP and stPP, as calculated by a mathematical model. The association of these PP components with a combined endpoint of cardiovascular events was investigated; (3) Results: The 24-hour PP, elPP and stPP were 59 ± 12.5, 47.5 ± 9.5 and 11.5 ± 6.5 mmHg, respectively. During the follow-up (mean 8.4 years), 284 events occurred, including coronary events, stroke, heart failure hospitalization and peripheral revascularization. In the univariate Cox regression analysis, 24-hour PP, elPP and stPP were associated with the combined outcome. After the adjustment for covariates, per one standard deviation increase, 24-hour PP had a borderline association with risk (hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.34), 24-hour elPP remained associated with cardiovascular events (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.36) and 24-hour stPP lost its significance. (4) Conclusions: 24-hour elPP is a predictor of cardiovascular events in elderly treated hypertensive patients.
The aim of this study was to provide prediction models for masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring in an Italian population. We studied 738 ...treated hypertensive patients with normal clinic BPs classified as having controlled hypertension (CH) or MUCH if their daytime BP was < or ≥135/85 mmHg regardless of nighttime BP, respectively, or CH or MUCH if their 24-h BP was < or ≥130/80 mmHg regardless of daytime or nighttime BP, respectively. We detected 215 (29%) and 275 (37%) patients with MUCH using daytime and 24-h BP thresholds, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that males, those with a smoking habit, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), and a clinic systolic BP between 130−139 mmHg and/or clinic diastolic BP between 85−89 mmHg were associated with MUCH. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve showed good accuracy at 0.78 (95% CI 0.75−0.81, p < 0.0001) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.73−0.80, p < 0.0001) for MUCH defined by daytime and 24 h BP, respectively. Internal validation suggested a good predictive performance of the models. Males, those with a smoking habit, LVH, and high-normal clinic BP are indicators of MUCH and models including these factors provide good diagnostic accuracy in identifying this ambulatory BP phenotype.
PDF
