Cutoffs for white-coat and masked blood pressure effects: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study.

The values used to define white-coat and masked blood pressure (BP) effects are usually arbitrary. This study aimed at investigating the accuracy of various cutoffs based on the differences (ΔBP) between office BP (OBP) and 24h-ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to identify white-coat (WCH) and masked (MH) hypertension, which are phenotypes coupled with adverse prognosis. This cross-sectional study included 11,350 [Derivation cohort; 45% men, mean age = 55.1 ± 14.1 years, OBP = 132.1 ± 17.6/83.9 ± 12.5 mmHg, 24 h-ABPM = 121.6 ± 11.4/76.1 ± 9.6 mmHg, 25% using antihypertensive medications (AH)] and 7220 (Validation cohort; 46% men, mean age = 58.6 ± 15.1 years, OBP = 136.8 ± 18.7/87.6 ± 13.0 mmHg, 24 h-ABPM = 125.5 ± 12.6/77.7 ± 10.3 mmHg; 32% using AH) unique individuals who underwent 24 h-ABPM. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and area under the curve (AUC) of diverse ΔBP cutoffs to detect WCH (ΔsystolicBP/ΔdiastolicBP = 28/17, 20/15, 20/10, 16/11, 15/9, 14/9 mmHg and ΔsystolicBP = 13 and 10 mmHg) and MH (ΔsystolicBP/ΔdiastolicBP = -14/-9, -5/-2, -3/-1, -1/-1, 0/0, 2/2 mmHg and ΔsystolicBP = -5 and -3mmHg). The 20/15 mmHg cutoff showed the best AUC (0.804, 95%CI = 0.794-0.814) to detect WCH, while the 2/2 mmHg cutoff showed the highest AUC (0.741, 95%CI = 0.728-0.754) to detect MH in the Derivation cohort. Both cutoffs also had the best accuracy to detect WCH (0.767, 95%CI = 0.754-0.780) and MH (0.767, 95%CI = 0.750-0.784) in the Validation cohort. In secondary analyses, these cutoffs had the best accuracy to detect individuals with higher and lower office-than-ABPM grades in both cohorts. In conclusion, the 20/15 and 2/2 mmHg ΔBP cutoffs had the best accuracy to detect hypertensive patients with WCH and MH, respectively, and can serve as indicators of marked white-coat and masked BP effects derived from 24 h-ABPM.

Accuracy of screening strategies for masked hypertension: a large-scale nationwide study based on home blood pressure monitoring.

This study compared the ability of guideline-proposed office blood pressure (OBP) screening thresholds [European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines: 130/85 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines: 120/75 mmHg for individuals with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg] and novel screening scores to identify normotensive individuals at high risk of having masked hypertension (MH) in an office setting. We cross-sectionally evaluated untreated participants with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg (n = 22,266) and an OBP < 130/80 mmHg (n = 10,005) who underwent home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) (derivation cohort) from 686 Brazilian sites. MH was defined according to criteria suggested by the ESH (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 135/85 mmHg), Brazilian Society of Cardiology (BSC) (OBP < 140/90 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg) and ACC/AHA (OBP < 130/80 mmHg; HBPM ≥ 130/80 mmHg). Scores were generated from multivariable logistic regression coefficients between MH and clinical variables (OBP, age, sex, and BMI). Considering the ESH, BSC, and ACC/AHA criteria, 17.2%, 38.5%, and 21.2% of the participants had MH, respectively. Guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds yielded area under curve (AUC) values of 0.640 (for ESH criteria), 0.641 (for BSC criteria), and 0.619 (for ACC/AHA criteria) for predicting MH, while scores presented as continuous variables or quartiles yielded AUC values of 0.700 and 0.688 (for ESH criteria), 0.720 and 0.709 (for BSC criteria), and 0.671 and 0.661 (for ACC/AHA criteria), respectively. Further analyses performed with alternative untreated participants (validation cohort; n = 2807 with an OBP < 140/90 mmHg; n = 1269 with an OBP < 130/80 mmHg) yielded similar AUC values. In conclusion, the accuracy of guideline-proposed OBP screening thresholds in identifying individuals at high risk of having MH in an office setting is limited and is inferior to that yielded by scores derived from simple clinical variables.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control: a nationwide home blood pressure monitoring study.

There are concerns that hypertension control may decrease during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on office blood pressure (OBP) and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) control in a large Brazilian nationwide sample. The results of an adjusted spline analysis evaluating the trajectory of OBP and HBPM control from 01/Jan/2019 to 31/Dec/2020 among independent participants who were untreated (n = 24,227) or treated (n = 27,699) with antihypertensive medications showed a modest and transient improvement in OBP control among treated individuals, which was restricted to the early months following the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. Furthermore, slight reductions in OBP and HBPM values were detected in the early months following the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak among treated (n = 987) participants for whom blood pressure measurements before and during the pandemic were available, but not among untreated (n = 495) participants. In conclusion, we found no major adverse influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on OBP and HBPM control in a large nationwide sample.

Discrepancies in the diagnosis of hypertension in adolescents according to available office and home high blood pressure criteria.

This study aimed at comparing the prevalence of abnormal blood pressure (BP) phenotypes among 241 adolescents referred for hypertension (15.4 ± 1.4 years, 62% males, 40% obese) according to mostly used or available criteria for hypertension [AAP or ESH criteria for high office BP (OBP); Arsakeion or Goiânia schools' criteria for high home BP monitoring (HBPM)]. High OBP prevalence was greater when defined by AAP compared with ESH criteria (43.5% vs. 24.5%; p < .001), while high HBPM prevalence was similar between Arsakeion and Goiânia criteria (33.5% and 37.5%; p = .34). Fifty-five percent of the sample fulfilled at least one criterion for high BP, but only 31% of this subsample accomplished all four criteria. Regardless of the HBPM criteria, AAP thresholds were associated with lower prevalence of normotension and masked hypertension and greater prevalence of white-coat and sustained hypertension than ESH thresholds. These findings support the need to standardize the definition of hypertension among adolescents.

The impact of changing home blood pressure monitoring cutoff from 135/85 to 130/80 mmHg on hypertension phenotypes.

This study investigated the impact of changing abnormal home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) cutoff from 135/85 to 130/80 mmHg on the prevalence of hypertension phenotypes, considering an abnormal office blood pressure cutoff of 140/90 mmHg. We evaluated 57 768 individuals (26 876 untreated and 30 892 treated with antihypertensive medications) from 719 Brazilian centers who performed HBPM. Changing the HBPM cutoff was associated with increases in masked (from 10% to 22%) and sustained (from 27% to 35%) hypertension, and decreases in white-coat hypertension (from 16% to 7%) and normotension (from 47% to 36%) among untreated participants, and increases in masked (from 11% to 22%) and sustained (from 29% to 36%) uncontrolled hypertension, and decreases in white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (from 15% to 8%) and controlled hypertension (from 45% to 34%) among treated participants. In conclusion, adoption of an abnormal HBPM cutoff of 130/80 mmHg markedly increased the prevalence of out-of-office hypertension and uncontrolled hypertension phenotypes.

Relationship between office isolated systolic or diastolic hypertension and white-coat hypertension across the age spectrum: a home blood pressure study.

OBJECTIVE: The current study investigated the prevalence of white-coat hypertension (WCH) and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH) throughout the age spectrum among individuals with office isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH) and systolic-diastolic hypertension (SDH) who were untreated or treated with antihypertensive medications, respectively. METHODS: We cross-sectionally evaluated 8809 untreated (42% males, 52.1 ±â€Š16.2 years) and 9136 treated (39% males, 59.7 ±â€Š14.5 years) individuals from two independent Brazilian populations who underwent home blood pressure monitoring. Participants were also categorized as younger (<40 years), intermediate (≥40 and <60 years) and older (≥60 years) age. RESULTS: Unadjusted and adjusted analyses showed that the frequency of WCH and WUCH was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in ISH and IDH than SDH at all age groups. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for sex, BMI and studied population showed that, compared with SDH, ISH had in average 4.1, 3.1 and 1.6-fold greater risk of WCH and 3.3, 3.6 and 2.0-fold greater risk of WUCH at younger, intermediate and older ages, whereas IDH had in average 2.3, 2.6 and 2.0-fold greater risk of WCH and 3.8, 3.2 and 3.8-fold greater risk of WUCH at younger, intermediate and older ages, respectively. CONCLUSION: ISH and IDH were associated with higher prevalence of WCH and WUCH than SDH across all age spectrum. In addition, treated and untreated ISH individuals with age less than 60 years and treated IDH individuals of all ages had the highest risk of having WCH phenotypes.

Blood pressure cutoffs for white-coat and masked effects in a large population undergoing home blood pressure monitoring.

The values used to define the presence of white-coat or masked blood pressure (BP) effects are arbitrary. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of several cutoff points based on the difference between office and home BP (ΔBP) values to detect white-coat uncontrolled (WUCH) and masked uncontrolled (MUCH) hypertension, which are phenotypes with adverse prognoses, in a large cohort of treated hypertensive patients. This multicenter cross-sectional study included 6,049 treated hypertensive patients (40% males, mean age 59.1 ± 14.4 years) who underwent office and home BP monitoring. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, area under curve (AUC), and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of several ΔBP cutoffs to detect WUCH and MUCH. The 15/9 mmHg cutoff, which reflects a 1.0 standard deviation of the ΔBP, showed the best AUC (0.783, 95% CI = 0.772-0.794) for the detection of WUCH, particularly in individuals with office grade 1 hypertension (AUC = 0.811, 95% CI = 0.793-0.829). The -1/-1 mmHg cutoff, which considers all individuals who had lower systolic or diastolic BP levels in the office than at home, had the highest AUC (0.822, 95% CI = 0.808-0.836) for the detection of MUCH. Both cutoff values also had the best performances for identifying all patients with higher and lower office-than-home BP grades. In conclusion, the 15/9 and -1/-1 mmHg cutoffs showed the best performance for the detection of treated hypertensive patients with WUCH and MUCH, respectively, and therefore might be markers of significant white-coat and masked effects and could be useful for identifying preferential targets for more routine home BP measures.