RESUMEN
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)