[Stress-associated hypertension in the work place: results of the STARLET project]. / Stressassoziierte Hypertonie am Arbeitsplatz--Ergebnisse des STARLET-Projekts.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of work stress and initial blood pressure on the prognosis of hypertension. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a prospective, controlled, multicentre, observational study, ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure measurements (ABPM) of employees from different work places were recorded at the work place on working days. Recurrent ABPM were performed for up to 5 years on 3448 subjects (mean age 44.6 years) who gave consent for follow-up. Subjects with hypertension were told to consult their family doctor so that they could receive antihypertensive treatment (the angiotensin receptor blocker eprosartan, an ACE-inhibitor or a beta-blocker were recommended for initial treatment). Subjects were classified as being in mental strain (stress-positive [stress+]/ stress-negative [stress-]), using standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: Only 1242 (36.0%) of the 3448 employees (69.% males) were normotensives. Only 166 (7.5%) of the 2206 hypertensives had normal ABPMs (<135/85 mmHg) and received antihypertensive treatment at the time of inclusion into the trial. During follow-up 57.8% of patients were treated with eprosartan or ACE-inhibitors, 34.6% with beta-blockers. By the time of the final visit 80.5% of hypertensives had achieved improvement of systolic and/or diastolic blood pressures (29.1% normotensive). Patients with hypertensive ABPM at baseline had more cardiovascular events than normotensives (normotensives 3.0%; grade 1 7.8%, grade 2-3 9.8%). Hypertensive ABPMs at the last follow up or an increase in blood pressure grade were associated with higher event rates than normotensives (stable normotensives 1.8% events vs. stable hypertensives 7.9%, vs. worsening or grade 2-3: 9.1%) More hypertensives were classified as stress+ than normotensives. Persons classified as stress- (or changing to stress-) had fewer events (6.2%) than those regarded as stress+ or changing to stress+ (7.1%). Persons regarded as stable stress- had lower mean blood pressures than those who were stable stress+. Change to another stress group was associated with an increase or decrease of mean blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Many employed people are hypertensive at work and are not treated adequately. ABPM control and antihypertensive treatment based on eprosartan, ACE-inhibitors or beta-blockers resulted in a significant increase in the number of patients with lower blood-pressure levels and a reduction in cardiovascular events. Patients under mental strain were more likely to be hypertensive. Mental strain was associated with changes in blood pressure.

Practice vs ambulatory blood pressure measurement under treatment with ramipril (PLUR Study): a randomised, prospective long-term study to evaluate the benefits of ABPM in patients on antihypertensive treatment.

The usefulness of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) vs casual blood pressure measurement in the physicians practice (PM) for the routine management of patients with hypertension concerning total mortality and morbidity has been compared in a prospective, randomised, open multicentre study with a 5-year follow-up. The study was performed in general practitioners offices in Germany from 1991 to 1997. A total of 1298 patients with essential hypertension were included. Cardio- and cerebrovascular events, total mortality/morbidity and drug-saving effects in hypertensives treated according to two different methods of blood pressure measurement were the primary and secondary endpoints of the study. A total of 239 patients from group 1 (ABPM, n = 651), and 208 from group 2 (PM, n = 647) prematurely discontinued the study. The reason for discontinuation in 55 of these patients (20 from group 1 and 35 from group 2) was that they reached the main endpoint (total mortality/morbidity and cardio- and cerebrovascular events) of the study. The difference was statistically significant (P = 0.037) in favour of group 1. Cardio- and cerebrovascular events also occurred in a lower number of patients (n = 14) in group 1, as compared to group 2 (n = 24). The difference however was not significant (P = 0. 097). A difference in a direct drug-saving effect could not be observed between the two groups but 22% of the initially screened patients were detected with the ABPM to have white coat hypertension and thus these patients did not receive antihypertensive treatment.