ABSTRACT
Resumo Fundamento: Hipertensos tratados avaliados apenas com a medida casual da pressão arterial (PA) podem estar sujeitos a decisões equivocadas. Objetivos: Avaliar o comportamento da PA pela medida casual e residencial (MRPA), o comportamento das classes de anti-hipertensivos e as prevalências de hipertensão do avental branco (HABNC) e mascarada não-controladas (HMNC). Métodos: Estudo transversal que avaliou pacientes pela plataforma TeleMRPA entre 2017 e 2019. Foram excluídos aqueles sem medicamentos, com 3 ou mais, em uso de espironolactona e alfa-2 agonistas. As variáveis analisadas foram: idade, sexo, índice de massa corporal (IMC), número de medidas válidas da PA, médias da PA sistólica (PAS) e diastólica (PAD) pela medida casual e MRPA, e as classes de anti-hipertensivos. Utilizados os testes t pareado e não pareado e qui-quadrado. Adotado nível de significância de 5%. Resultados: Selecionados 22.446 pacientes, dos quais 6.731 preencheram os critérios, sendo 61,3% do sexo feminino, com idade média de 57,8 (±12,6) anos e IMC médio de 29,0 (±5,1) kg/m2. Os valores médios de PAS e PAD foram 6,6 mmHg (p<0,001) e 4,4 mmHg (p<0,001) maiores na medida casual que na MRPA. As taxas de controle da PA foram de 57,0% pela medida casual e 61,3% pela MRPA (p<0,001), com prevalência de HABNC e HMNC de 15,4% e 11,1%, respectivamente. O bloqueio do sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona ocorreu em 74,6% das vezes e 54,8% estavam em monoterapia. Conclusões: O uso da MRPA deve ser considerado no acompanhamento de hipertensos tratados em virtude das elevadas prevalências de HABNC e HMNC. Os anti-hipertensivos tiveram comportamentos distintos nas medidas domiciliares. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)
Abstract Background: Hypertensive patients undergoing treatment and assessed only by casual blood pressure (BP) measurement may be subject to mistaken decisions. Objective: To assess BP behavior by measuring its levels at the office (casual) and at home (HBPM), the behavior of different classes of antihypertensive drugs, and the prevalence of uncontrolled white-coat hypertension (UCWCH) and uncontrolled masked hypertension (UCMH). Methods: Cross-sectional study assessing patients who underwent BP monitoring in the TeleMRPA platform between 2017 and 2019. The exclusion criteria were: use of no antihypertensive drug; combined use of 3 or more antihypertensive drugs; and use of spironolactone and alpha-2 agonist. The variables analyzed were: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), number of valid BP measurements, means of systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively) obtained from HBPM and casual measurement, and the classes of antihypertensive drugs. Paired and unpaired t tests, as well as chi-square test, were used. The 5% significance level was adopted. Results: This study selected 22 446 patients, 6731 of whom met the inclusion criteria [61.3%, female sex; mean age, 57.8 (±12.6) years; mean BMI, 29.0 (±5.1) kg/m2]. Mean SBP and DBP were 6.6 mm Hg (p<0.001) and 4.4 mm Hg (p<0.001) higher in casual measurement than in HBPM. The rates of BP control were 57.0% in casual measurement and 61.3% in HBPM (p<0.001), and the prevalence of UCWCH and UCMH was 15.4% and 11.1%, respectively. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade was observed in 74.6% of the patients, and 54.8% were on single-drug therapy. Conclusions: HBPM should be considered for the follow-up of treated hypertensive patients because of the high prevalence of UCWCH and UCMH. Antihypertensive drugs behaved differently in HBPM. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , White Coat Hypertension/diagnosis , White Coat Hypertension/drug therapy , White Coat Hypertension/epidemiology , Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/drug therapy , Hypertension/epidemiology , Blood Pressure , Cross-Sectional Studies , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Middle Aged , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Abstract Background: The diagnosis of arterial hypertension based on measurements of blood pressure in the office has low accuracy. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of masked hypertension (MH) and white-coat hypertension through home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) in pre-hypertensive and stage 1 hypertensive patients. Method: Retrospective study, of which sample consisted of individuals with BP ≥ 120/80 mmHg and < 160/100 mmHg at the medical office without the use of antihypertensive medication and who underwent exams on the HBPM platform by telemedicine (TeleMRPA) between May 2017 and September 2018. The four-day MRPA protocol was used, with 24 measurements, using automated, validated, calibrated equipment with a memory function. Results: The sample consisted of 1,273 participants, of which 739 (58.1%) were women. The mean age was 52.4 ± 14.9 years, mean body mass index (BMI) 28.4 ± 5.1 kg/m2. The casual BP was higher than the HBPM in 7.6 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and 5.2 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP), both with statistical significance (p < 0.001). There were 558 (43.8%) normotensive individuals; 291 (22.9%) with sustained hypertension; 145 (11.4%) with MH and 279 (21.9%) with white-coat hypertension (WCH), with a diagnostic error by casual BP in the total sample in 424 (33.3%) patients. In stage 1 hypertensive individuals, the prevalence of WCH was 48.9%; in prehypertensive patients, the prevalence of MH was 20.6%. Conclusion: MH and WCH have a high prevalence rate in the adult population; however, in prehypertensive or stage 1 hypertensive patients, the prevalence is higher. Out-of-office BP measurements in these subgroups should be performed whenever possible to prevent misdiagnosis.
Resumo Fundamento: O diagnóstico de hipertensão arterial baseado nas medidas do consultório tem baixa acurácia. Objetivo: Avaliar a prevalência de hipertensão mascarada (HM) e do avental branco pela monitorização residencial da pressão arterial (MRPA) em pacientes pré-hipertensos e hipertensos estágio. Método: Estudo retrospectivo com amostra constituída de indivíduos com pressão arterial (PA) na clínica ≥ 120/80 mmHg e < 160/100 mmHg sem uso de medicação anti-hipertensiva e que realizaram exames na plataforma de MRPA por telemedicina (TeleMRPA) entre maio de 2017 e setembro de 2018. Foi utilizado o protocolo MRPA de quatro dias, com 24 medidas, com equipamentos automáticos, validados, calibrados e com memória. Resultados: A amostra foi constituída de 1.273 participantes, sendo 739 (58,1%) mulheres. A idade média foi 52,4 ± 14,9 anos, índice de massa corporal (IMC) médio 28,4 ± 5,1 kg/m2. A PA casual foi maior que a MRPA em 7,6 mmHg para pressão arterial sistólica (PAS) e 5,2 mmHg para a pressão arterial diastólica (PAD), ambas com significância estatística (p < 0,001). Foram diagnosticados 558 (43,8%) normotensos; 291 (22,9%) hipertensos sustentados; 145 (11,4%) com HM e 279 (21,9%) com hipertensão do avental branco (HAB), com erro diagnóstico pela PA casual na amostra total em 424 (33,3%) pacientes. Em hipertensos estágio 1, a prevalência de HAB foi de 48,9%; nos pré-hipertensos a prevalência de HM foi de 20,6%. Conclusão: HM e HAB têm elevada prevalência na população adulta; entretanto, na população de pré-hipertensos ou hipertensos estágio 1 a prevalência é maior. Medidas da PA fora do consultório, nestes subgrupos, devem ser realizadas sempre que possível para evitar erro diagnóstico.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Masked Hypertension/diagnosis , White Coat Hypertension/diagnosis , Brazil/epidemiology , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Diagnostic Errors/statistics & numerical data , Masked Hypertension/epidemiology , White Coat Hypertension/epidemiology , Data Accuracy , Hypertension/diagnosisABSTRACT
Abstract Casual blood pressure measurements have been extensively questioned over the last five decades. A significant percentage of patients have different blood pressure readings when examined in the office or outside it. For this reason, a change in the paradigm of the best manner to assess blood pressure has been observed. The method that has been most widely used is the Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring - ABPM. The method allows recording blood pressure measures in 24 hours and evaluating various parameters such as mean BP, pressure loads, areas under the curve, variations between daytime and nighttime, pulse pressure variability etc. Blood pressure measurements obtained by ABPM are better correlated, for example, with the risks of hypertension. The main indications for ABPM are: suspected white coat hypertension and masked hypertension, evaluation of the efficacy of the antihypertensive therapy in 24 hours, and evaluation of symptoms. There is increasing evidence that the use of ABPM has contributed to the assessment of blood pressure behaviors, establishment of diagnoses, prognosis and the efficacy of antihypertensive therapy. There is no doubt that the study of 24-hour blood pressure behavior and its variations by ABPM has brought more light and less darkness to the field, which justifies the title of this review.
Resumo Nas últimas cinco décadas muito têm sido questionadas as medidas casuais da pressão arterial (PA). Significativa porcentagem de pacientes apresenta PA muito diversa quando examinados na clínica ou fora dela. Por isso, é hoje observada uma mudança de paradigma com relação ao melhor modo de se avaliar a PA. O método que mais se consolidou é a Monitorização Ambulatorial da Pressão Arterial - MAPA. É possível obter-se o registro de medidas de PA durante 24 horas avaliando-se vários parâmetros como: médias de PA, cargas de pressão, áreas sob as curvas, variações entre vigília e sono, variabilidade de pressão de pulso etc. As medidas de PA obtidas pela MAPA são mais bem correlacionadas, por exemplo, com os riscos da hipertensão arterial. As principais indicações para a MAPA são: suspeita de hipertensão do avental branco e da hipertensão mascarada, avaliação da eficácia terapêutica nas 24 horas e avaliação de sintomas. Crescem as evidências de que o emprego da MAPA contribui para avaliar os comportamentos da PA, estabelecer diagnósticos, prognóstico e avaliar a eficácia terapêutica anti-hipertensiva. Sem dúvidas, o estudo do comportamento da PA e suas variações durante as 24 horas pela MAPA nos deixaram com menos sombras e mais luzes, e justifica o título desta revisão.
Subject(s)
Humans , Blood Pressure/physiology , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/standards , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory/trends , Hypertension/diagnosis , Societies, Medical , Time Factors , Blood Pressure Determination/methods , Brazil , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Masked Hypertension/diagnosis , White Coat Hypertension/diagnosis , Hypertension/drug therapy , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The detection of white coat hypertension (WCH), treated normalized hypertension, and masked hypertension (MH) is important to improve the effectiveness of hypertension management. However, whether global cardiovascular risk (GCR) profile has any effect on the discordance between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and clinic blood pressure (CBP) is unknown. METHODS: Data from 1,916 subjects, taken from the Korean Multicenter Registry for ABP monitoring, were grouped according to diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for CBP and ABP (140/90 and 135/85 mmHg, respectively). GCR was assessed using European Society of Hypertension 2007 guidelines. RESULTS: The mean subject age was 54.1 ± 14.9 years, and 48.9% of patients were female. The discordancy rate between ABP and CBP in the untreated and treated patients was 32.5% and 26.5%, respectively (p = 0.02). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension and MH was 14.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Discordance between ABP and CBP was lower in the very high added-risk group compared to the moderate added-risk group (odds ratio [OR], 0.649; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487 to 0.863; p = 0.003). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension was also lower in the very high added-risk group (OR, 0.451; 95% CI, 0.311 to 0.655). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between ABP and CBP was observed more frequently in untreated subjects than in treated subjects, and less frequently in the very high added-risk group, which was due mainly to the lower prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension.