Hemodynamic profiles in treatment-naive arterial hypertension and their clinical implication for treatment choice: an exploratory post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive thoracic bioimpedance by the HOTMAN System estimates hemodynamic modulators and expresses them as hemodynamic profiles. Aims of this analysis were to describe hemodynamic profiles among treatment-naive hypertensive patients compared with normotensive controls and to investigate whether a hemodynamic-guided choice of therapy improves blood pressure (BP) control within 4 weeks. METHOD: This exploratory post hoc analysis used data of a randomized parallel-group trial including 80 outpatients with newly diagnosed arterial hypertension (AHT), randomized to four antihypertensive first-line monotherapies, and 20 age-matched and sex-matched normotensive controls. Hemodynamic profiles were measured at baseline and after four weeks of treatment. On the basis of the hemodynamic profiles, the most appropriate pharmacological treatment was determined retrospectively and patients were categorised to have received concordant (ConTG) or discordant treatment (DisTG). RESULTS: In the hypertensive group, hypervolemia with vasoconstriction was the predominant hemodynamic profile in 48% of patients and hypervolemia without vasoconstriction in 45%, compared with 15 and 50%, respectively, in the control group. After 4 weeks of treatment, the mean (±SD) 24-h BP was 129.9 (±11.0)/81.5 (±8.0) mmHg in the DisTG vs. 133.9 (±12.3)/84.0 (±9.1) mmHg in the ConTG (P = 0.158/0.222). The mean 24-h BP reductions were -9.7 (±10.1)/-5.0 (±6.2) mmHg in the DisTG and -12.4 (±14.8)/-6.9(±6.9) mmHg in the ConTG (P = 0.353/0.223). After 4 weeks of treatment, the BP control rate was 53.7% (43/80) among all, 55.7% (29/52) in the DisTG and 48% (12/25) in the ConTG (P = 0.628). CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support the hypothesis that personalized treatment initiation based on hemodynamic profiles improves BP control in newly diagnosed hypertensive outpatients.

Accuracy of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring by a novel cuffless device in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Recently, a cuffless blood pressure (BP) measurement device using pulse transit time (PTT) for beat-to-beat calculation of BP values has been validated over a short time period. However, it remains unknown how values obtained with this device compare with standard ambulatory measurements over a 24-hour period. We hypothesised that BP values measured by a cuffless PTT device (TestBP) are comparable with measurements by a standard upper arm cuff-based BP device (RefBP) in clinical practice over 24 hours. METHODS: Between May and December 2017, 71 individuals were prospectively included. Cuffless using the Somnotouch-NIBP (Somnomedics GmbH, Randersacker, Germany) and cuff-based standard 24-hour BP measurements were performed simultaneously on the left and right arm, respectively. The first RefBP measurement was used as calibration measurement for the TestBP. RESULTS: Mean (±SD) age was 49.3 (15.1) years, and 51% were male. Mean 24-hour BP for TestBP and RefBP were 140.8 (20.0) versus 134.0 (17.3) mm Hg for systolic (p<0.0001) and 85.8 (14.1)versus79.3 (11.7) mm Hg for diastolic (p<0.0001) measurements, respectively. Mean absolute systolic and diastolic disagreements between TestBP and RefBP were 10.2 (7.2) and 8.2 (5.5) mm Hg, respectively. The number (percentage) of absolute differences between the mean 24-hour BP values of the TestBP and RefBP within 5, 10 and 15 mm Hg were 23 (32.4), 43 (60.6) and 54 (74.6) for systolic and 24 (33.8), 51 (71.8) and 65 (91.6) for diastolic measurements, respectively. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice over 24 hours, there was a significant difference between the TestBP and RefBP with higher systolic and diastolic BP measured with the cuffless PTT device. Reasons for this difference need to be investigated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03054688; Results.

Reliability of single office blood pressure measurements.

OBJECTIVES: Standard operating procedures for office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) vary greatly between guidelines and studies. We aimed to compare the difference between a single OBPM and the mean of the three following measurements. Further, we studied how many patients with possible hypertension may be missed due to short-term masked hypertension (STMH) and how many might be overdiagnosed due to short-term white coat hypertension (STWCH). DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional, single-centre trial, 1000 adult subjects were enrolled. After 5 min of rest, four sequential standard OBPMs were performed at 2 min intervals in a quiet room in sitting position. We compared the first (fBPM) to the mean of the second to fourth measurement (mBPM). STMH was defined as fBPM <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic and mBPM systolic ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg. STWCH was defined as fBPM systolic ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg and mBPM <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic. RESULTS: Complete measurements were available in 802 subjects. Between fBPM and mBPM, 662 (82.5%), 441 (55%) and 208 (25.9%) subjects showed a difference in systolic and 531 (66.2%), 247 (30.8%) and 51 (6.4%) in diastolic blood pressure (BP) values of >2 mm Hg, >5 mm Hg and >10 mm Hg, respectively. In 3.4% of initially normotensives STMH and in 34.3% of initially hypertensives, STWCH was apparent. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between a single OBPM and the mean of consecutive BP measurements. Our study provides evidence that a single OBPM should not be the preferred method and should be discouraged in future guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02552030;Results.