Search

The article is devoted to various aspects of white coat effect (WCE) in patients with hypertension (HTN). WCE is due to the patient’s anxious response to office blood pressure (BP) measurement and is characterized by a BP increase. In patients with HTN, WCE is detected with a high frequency. Pronounced WCE in hypertensive patients is associated with worsening the HTN course and the prognosis of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. In addition, BP increase in these patients during a doctor’s visit may lead to additional prescription of antihypertensive drugs, increasing costs and side effects. To identify WCE, a large number of methods are used, which can be divided into following groups: I – data from clinical and daytime ambulatory blood pressure measurement, II – clinical and home BP assessment, III – only ambulatory BP measurement, IV – clinical and laboratory BP data, and V – only clinical BP measurement. There are following WCE in patients with HTN: female sex, age, never smoking, as well as anxiety, introversion, etc. WCE is due to the patient’s anxiety state during office BP measurement and a conditioned reflex BP increase associated both with the physician presence and medical background. Severe WCE in some groups of patients with HTN may be associated with a worse prognosis compared with other hypertensive patients as follows: in individuals with a significant difference between clinical and ambulatory blood pressure levels or between the first and third BP office data, with a combination of resistant HTN and WCE, with WCE increasing from visit to visit, etc.

The new international guidelines on hypertension management have been issued in the past few years. The AHA (2017) and ESH (2018) Guidelines are similar in many key aspects. However, they differ substantially in the area of blood pressure (BP) measurement methodology. In this article, we aim to explain the ESC Guidelines position, specifically the conservative BP thresholds and a wider use of ambulatory BP measurement methods. In our opinion, the main reason behind this position is the introduction and a relatively widespread use of automatic office BP measurement (AOBP). On one hand, this method has questioned the results of the SPRINT trial – the key evidence source for the AHA Guidelines. On the other hand, AOBP has challenged the concept of “traditional office BP measurement”. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the current multiplicity of BP measurement methods and respective threshold values recommended for each method. It is essential to perform the office BP measurement correctly and thoroughly. Throughout all stages of the hypertensive patient management (diagnosis, antihypertensive treatment choice, and long-term observation), the use of out-of-clinic BP measurement is strongly advisable.

Recently, more and more attention has been paid to the chronotherapy of arterial hypertension (HT). This method provides an opportunity to improve the treatment efficacy by non-traditional regimes of antihypertensive drug intake. The new findings concerning a high prognostic value of the night-time blood pressure (BP) and night BP fall stimulate the interest in chronotherapy of HT. This method is very easy to use, and the evidences of its high efficacy are growing. The advantages and limitations of two potential chronotherapy approaches are discussed in detail.MAPEC was the largest project which investigated the possibility of cardiovascular complications risk reduction by normalizing the circadian rhythm of BP due to the bed-time administration of antihypertensive drugs. The authors obtained impressive results – more than a double reduction of cardiovascular complications risk in the chronotherapy group. However, the study had serious limitations: ethnically homogeneous population, the lack of independent verification of endpoints and adverse events, and inconvenience of 48-hour BP monitoring.The currently available scientific information concerning advantages of HT chronotherapy needs further confirmation in the carefully designed multi-centre prospective studies. According to the authors’ opinion, illustrated by their original data, the relatively small and short studies are still important. Such trials allow using more nuanced methodological approaches, such as a double blind or cross-over design and comparison of the pharmacokinetics of antihypertensive drugs in the morning and evening administration.

Aim. To estimate an efficiency of influenza vaccination in patients with circulatory system diseases diseases (CSD) under 3-year follow-up in outpatient clinics.Methods. The efficiency of influenza vaccination was investigated in CSD patients followed up at 2Ivanovo outpatient clinics and 2Saratov ones. The investigation enrolled 817 people, including 367 patients who consented to Grippol Plus influenza vaccination and 450 who refused.Results. During 36-month follow-up after being included in the study the vaccinated group showed a significantly fewer influenza and acute respiratory viral infections than the non-vaccinated group (28 and 442; р

Aim. To compare antihypertensive effect of ramipril monotherapy at morning and evening taking.Material and methods. 22 patients (10 men, 12 women; aged 62,1±1,9 y.o.) with arterial hypertension of 1-2 stage were involved into the open randomized crossover study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups depending on ramipril taking time (morning or evening). Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) was performed. Patients of both groups were comparable in basic clinical characteristics and initial ABPM indices. Analysis of peak and phase characteristics of 24 hour BP profile was used as well as standard evaluation. Treatment duration was 3 weeks. Ramipril dose titration was made in 1,5 weeks. The average daily dose of ramipril was 6,1 mg in the morning taking, and 5,0 mg in the evening taking.Results. 20 patients finished study completely. 24 hour initial level of systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) was 141,5±1,6/85,3±1,1 mm Hg. After ramipril monotherapy with evening taking BP reduced to 132,6±1,6/79,8±1,1 mm Hg (pConclusion. Evening ramipril taking is effective and safe. It can be recommended to patients with insufficient night BP dipping (non dippers).

Aim. To compare antihypertensive effect of ramipril monotherapy at morning and evening taking.Material and methods. 22 patients (10 men, 12 women; aged 62,1±1,9 y.o.) with arterial hypertension of 1-2 stage were involved into the open randomized crossover study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups depending on ramipril taking time (morning or evening). Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) was performed. Patients of both groups were comparable in basic clinical characteristics and initial ABPM indices. Analysis of peak and phase characteristics of 24 hour BP profile was used as well as standard evaluation. Treatment duration was 3 weeks. Ramipril dose titration was made in 1,5 weeks. The average daily dose of ramipril was 6,1 mg in the morning taking, and 5,0 mg in the evening taking.Results. 20 patients finished study completely. 24 hour initial level of systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) was 141,5±1,6/85,3±1,1 mm Hg. After ramipril monotherapy with evening taking BP reduced to 132,6±1,6/79,8±1,1 mm Hg (p

Aim. To compare enalapril (E) and diltiazem (D) efficacy in menopausal women with arterial hypertension (AH) using three methods of blood pressure (BP) measurement.Material and methods. There was a cross-over randomised study with E and D included 22 menopausal women with AH. E was given at a daily dose of 5-20 mg and D – at a daily dose of 180-360 mg. At baseline and at the end of each treatment period ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was carried out. Self blood pressure measurement (SBPM) was performed during all study period. To assess a steadiness of antihypertensive effect we calculated smoothness index and trough-to-peak ratio based on ABPM data.Results. Ambulatory 24-h systolic BP and diastolic BP were decreased in the E group (-15.2/-9.6 mm Hg) and in the D group (-10.9/-6.0 mm Hg). E demonstrated a greater antihypertensive effect on SBPM results in the evening. Values of smoothness index on E treatment were slightly higher than on D treatment (0.86±0.15/0.64±0.13 vs 0.67±0.17/0.62±0.15). Trough-to-peak ratio was inconclusive in this study.Conclusions. Results of the study have shown some advantages of antihypertensive therapy with E compared with these of D in slow release formulation (both drugs at a single daily dose) in menopausal women. A sustained antihypertensive effect without negative influence on circadian BP profile allows to consider E as one of perspective agents for the AH treatment in this type of patients.

Aim. To compare enalapril (E) and diltiazem (D) efficacy in menopausal women with arterial hypertension (AH) using three methods of blood pressure (BP) measurement.Material and methods. There was a cross-over randomised study with E and D included 22 menopausal women with AH. E was given at a daily dose of 5-20 mg and D – at a daily dose of 180-360 mg. At baseline and at the end of each treatment period ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was carried out. Self blood pressure measurement (SBPM) was performed during all study period. To assess a steadiness of antihypertensive effect we calculated smoothness index and trough-to-peak ratio based on ABPM data.Results. Ambulatory 24-h systolic BP and diastolic BP were decreased in the E group (-15.2/-9.6 mm Hg) and in the D group (-10.9/-6.0 mm Hg). E demonstrated a greater antihypertensive effect on SBPM results in the evening. Values of smoothness index on E treatment were slightly higher than on D treatment (0.86±0.15/0.64±0.13 vs 0.67±0.17/0.62±0.15). Trough-to-peak ratio was inconclusive in this study.Conclusions. Results of the study have shown some advantages of antihypertensive therapy with E compared with these of D in slow release formulation (both drugs at a single daily dose) in menopausal women. A sustained antihypertensive effect without negative influence on circadian BP profile allows to consider E as one of perspective agents for the AH treatment in this type of patients.