Title of article :
Is resistant hypertension really resistant?
Author/Authors :
Mark A. Brown، نويسنده , , Megan L. Buddle، نويسنده , , Allison Martin، نويسنده ,
Issue Information :
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2001
Pages :
7
From page :
1263
To page :
1269
Abstract :
Background Managing resistant hypertension is difficult and mostly involves expensive testing seeking an underlying secondary cause. This study was undertaken to determine 1) the extent of the white-coat phenomenon in patients with resistant hypertension, and 2) whether 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) or having BP recorded by a nurse instead of the referring doctor could clarify how many apparently resistant hypertensives actually have controlled BP. Methods This study involved 611 patients with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg who were referred for 24-h ABPM by their specialist or general practitioner, including 277 patients who were taking no antihypertensives (group 1), 216 taking one or two antihypertensive drugs (group 2), and 118 taking at least three antihypertensives in combination (group 3). Each had BP recorded by one of two nurses before 24-h ABPM. Controlled BP was defined as awake ambulatory BP <135/85 mm Hg and the white-coat effect was the difference between the BP recorded by the referring doctor or nurse and the average awake ambulatory BP. Results: Those with resistant hypertension (group 3) were older (61 years (12) v group 1: 46 years (14) and group 2: 56 (14) years; P< .001), but were of similar weight, height, and arm circumference to the other groups. Referral systolic, but not diastolic BP was higher in resistant hypertensives (mean 171/95 v 154/95 mm Hg and 164/94 mm Hg, respectively, P< .001 for systolic BP only). Twenty-eight percent of resistant hypertensives and 32% of those taking no antihypertensive drugs had normal awake ambulatory BP and the white-coat effect attributable to the referring doctor was always greater than that due to the nurse (range 16 to 26/12 to 14 mm Hg v 9 to 17/4 mm Hg, P< .001). Nurse recorded BP was highly sensitive (97%) in identifying awake hypertension but lacked specificity (57%) to replace ABPM. Conclusion Our results show that approximately one in four patients with apparent resistant hypertension referred for ABPM have controlled BP and one-third of patients referred for initial evaluation of office or clinic hypertension have normal BP using ABPM, ie, white-coat hypertension. Twenty-four-hour ABPM appears an appropriate initial step before further investigating or treating patients with apparently resistant hypertension.
Keywords :
Resistant hypertension , white-coat effect , ambulatoryblood pressure monitoring. , refractory hypertension , White-coat hypertension
Journal title :
American Journal of Hypertension
Serial Year :
2001
Journal title :
American Journal of Hypertension
Record number :
648070
Link To Document :
بازگشت