Home versus ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis of clinic resistant and true resistant hypertension.

Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring is recommended as a standard method for the evaluation of resistant hypertension (RH). This study assessed the diagnostic value of home blood pressure (HBP) monitoring in RH. Subjects on stable treatment with ≥3 antihypertensive drugs were included. Clinic RH (CRH) was defined as elevated clinic blood pressure and true RH (TRH) as elevated ABP. The diagnosis of CRH was verified by ABP and HBP monitoring. The diagnostic value of HBP was assessed by taking ABP as reference method. Threshold for hypertension diagnosis was ≥135/85 mm Hg (systolic and/or diastolic) for HBP and awake ABP and ≥140/90 mm Hg for clinic blood pressure. Among 73 subjects on ≥3 antihypertensive drugs, 44 (60%) had CRH and 40 (55%) TRH. There was agreement between ABP and HBP in diagnosing CRH in 82% of the cases (26 subjects (59%) with CRH and 10 (23%) without CRH; kappa 0.59). Regarding the diagnosis of TRH, there was agreement between ABP and HBP in 74% of the cases (36 subjects (49%) with TRH and 18 (25%) without TRH; kappa 0.46). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of HBP in detecting CRH were 93%, 63%, and 81% and 83%, respectively, and TRH were 90%, 55%, and 71%, and 82%, respectively (ABP taken as reference method). These data suggest that HBP is a reliable alternative to ABP in the evaluation of RH. These methods are necessary in both uncontrolled and controlled subjects on triple therapy to detect the white coat phenomenon and also masked RH.

Does the antihypertensive response to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition predict the antihypertensive response to angiotensin receptor antagonism?

To test the hypothesis that the antihypertensive response to angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition can predict the response to angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1R) antagonism, 33 hypertensive patients were randomized to receive lisinopril (20 mg) or losartan (50 mg) for 5 weeks. Patients were then crossed-over to the alternative treatment for a second 5-week period. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP (ABP) was measured before randomization and on the final day of each period. The agreement in ABP response between the two drugs was assessed using the following approaches: Subjects were classified as responders and nonresponders using as a threshold an arbitrary level of response (ABP fall > or = 10 mm Hg systolic or > or = 5 mm Hg diastolic) or the median ABP response achieved by each of the drugs. Disagreement between the two drugs in the responders-nonresponders classification was expressed as the proportion of subjects whose ABP responded to one of the drugs only. Lisinopril was more effective than losartan in reducing ABP (mean difference 4.7+/-8.1/3.3+/-5.7 mm Hg, systolic/diastolic, P < .05). Disagreement in the antihypertensive response between the two drugs was found in 39%/33% of subjects for systolic/diastolic ABP using the arbitrary response criterion (33%/39% using the median response criterion). Significant correlations were found between the responses to lisinopril and losartan (r = 0.47/0.59, systolic/diastolic, P < .01). We conclude that in more than one third of hypertensive subjects, the BP response to ACE inhibition fails to predict the response to AT1R antagonism and vice versa. These data suggest that there are differences between these two drug classes that are not only of theoretical but also of practical significance.

Additive hypotensive effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and angiotensin-receptor antagonism in essential hypertension.

The study was designed to assess the antihypertensive effect of combined angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition and angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1) antagonism in patients with essential hypertension. Twenty patients with uncontrolled ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (BP) after 6 weeks of ACE inhibitor monotherapy (benazepril, 20 mg, o.d.) were randomized to receive double-blind valsartan, 80 mg, o.d. (AT1 antagonist) or matching placebo for 5 weeks while continuing to receive background benazepril. Then patients crossed over to the alternative regimen for a second 5-week period. The 24-h ambulatory BP was monitored on the final day of the benazepril monotherapy period and on the final day of each double-blind treatment period. Valsartan added to benazepril produced a significant antihypertensive effect with a benefit over placebo of 6.5 +/- 12.6/4.5 +/- 8.0 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) for average awake ambulatory BP (p < 0.05), 7.1 +/- 9.4/5.6 +/- 6.5 mm Hg for asleep BP (p < 0.01), and 6.8 +/- 9.7/4.9 +/- 6.8 mm Hg for average 24-h ambulatory BP (p < 0.01). Pulse rate was unaffected. Plasma active renin was higher on the benazepril-valsartan combination compared with benazepril-placebo (p < 0.05). There was no change in routine biochemical variables when valsartan was added to benazepril. Six patients reported mild dizziness or fatigue (three also with placebo). These data suggest that in hypertensive patients uncontrolled with an ACE inhibitor, the addition of an AT1 antagonist provides a powerful and safe antihypertensive drug combination.

Diagnosis of hypertension using home or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: comparison with the conventional strategy based on repeated clinic blood pressure measurements.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether measurement of blood pressure at home (HBP) and by ambulatory monitoring (ABP) are reliable alternatives to the traditional strategy for the diagnosis of hypertension based on blood pressure measurement on repeated clinic visits (CBP). DESIGN: Comparison of the diagnosis of hypertension based on HBP (on six workdays) or ABP monitoring (two occasions) with that based on CBP (five visits within 3 months). SETTING: Outpatient hypertension clinic. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 133 individuals with a diastolic CBP of 90-115 mmHg on the initial visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CBP, HBP and ABP values, and the diagnosis of hypertension. RESULTS: Hypertension was diagnosed in 70, 63 and 56% of individuals using the CBP, ABP and HBP methods respectively (P = 0.04). Agreement in the diagnosis of hypertension between all three methods was found in 59% of individuals. Disagreement between CBP and ABP was found in 27%, between CBP and HBP in 29% and between ABP and HBP in 26% of individuals. The sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of ABP to diagnose hypertension correctly were 76, 67, 85 and 53% respectively; for HBP the respective values were 69, 77, 88 and 51%. The same parameters for HBP compared with ABP in the detection of white-coat hypertension were 61, 79, 48 and 86% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Indiscriminate use of HBP or ABP monitoring in the evaluation of all individuals with high blood pressure will probably result in confusion and therefore should be discouraged. However, in the detection of white-coat hypertension, HBP appears to be useful as a screening test, which, if positive, requires confirmation with ABP monitoring.