Search

Background: Sex differences in blood pressure control are recognized. We systematically investigated sex differences in specific components of ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), including variability, day-night changes, morning surge, and hypertension types., Methods: We analyzed ABPs of 52 911 participants (45.6% male, 54.4% female, 37.0% treated for hypertension) visiting 860 Italian community pharmacies. Sex differences in ABP levels and patterns were evaluated in the whole group and 4 risk groups (antihypertensive-treated patients, patients with diabetes, dyslipidemia, or cardiovascular disease)., Results: Average 24-hour, day-time, and night-time blood pressure values were consistently higher in males than females ( P <0.001). Variability in ABP was higher in females, except during the night. Nondippers and an abnormal morning surge were more common among males (odds ratio and 95% CI, 1.282 [1.230-1.335] and 1.244 [1.159-1.335]; P <0.001). The prevalence of 24-hour and masked hypertension was higher in males (odds ratio and 95% CI, 2.093 [2.019-2.170] and 1.347 [1.283-1.415]; P <0.001) and that of white-coat hypertension in females (0.719 [0.684-0.755]; P <0.001). Ambulatory heart rate mean values were higher ( P <0.001) in females. Day-time HR variability was higher and night-time heart rate variability lower in females ( P <0.001). Sex differences in ABP levels and patterns detected in the whole population were replicated in all risk groups, except for the prevalence of abnormal morning surge (between sexes difference in antihypertensive-treated participants only)., Conclusions: Females show better ABP control than males, but with an increased blood pressure variability and a greater prevalence of white-coat hypertension. These findings support tailored management of hypertension., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03781401., Competing Interests: Disclosures S. Omboni is scientific consultant of Biotechmed Ltd, provider of telemedicine services. A.E. Schutte received speaker honoraria from device companies Omron and Aktiia. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Background: Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is critical for optimal cardiovascular risk management. Age-related trajectories for cuff-measured BP accelerate faster in women compared with men, but whether cuff BP represents the intraarterial (invasive) aortic BP is unknown. This study aimed to determine the sex differences between cuff BP, invasive aortic BP, and the difference between the 2 measurements., Methods: Upper-arm cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured during coronary angiography in 1615 subjects from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium Database. This analysis comprised 22 different cuff BP devices from 28 studies., Results: Subjects were 64±11 years (range 40-89) and 32% women. For the same cuff systolic BP (SBP), invasive aortic SBP was 4.4 mm Hg higher in women compared with men. Cuff and invasive aortic SBP were higher in women compared with men, but the sex difference was more pronounced from invasive aortic SBP, was the lowest in younger ages, and the highest in older ages. Cuff diastolic blood pressure overestimated invasive diastolic blood pressure in both sexes. For cuff and invasive diastolic blood pressure separately, there were sex*age interactions in which diastolic blood pressure was higher in younger men and lower in older men, compared with women. Cuff pulse pressure underestimated invasive aortic pulse pressure in excess of 10 mm Hg for both sexes in older age., Conclusions: For the same cuff SBP, invasive aortic SBP was higher in women compared with men. How this translates to cardiovascular risk prediction needs to be determined, but women may be at higher BP-related risk than estimated by cuff measurements.

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the most common form of hypertension and is highly prevalent in older people. We recently showed differences between upper-arm cuff and invasive blood pressure (BP) become greater with increasing age, which could influence correct identification of ISH. This study sought to determine the difference between identification of ISH by cuff BP compared with invasive BP. Cuff BP and invasive aortic BP were measured in 1695 subjects (median 64 years, interquartile range [55-72], 68% male) from the INSPECT (Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium) database. Data were recorded during coronary angiography among 29 studies, using 21 different cuff BP devices. ISH was defined as ≥130/<80 mm Hg using cuff BP compared with invasive aortic BP as the reference. The prevalence of ISH was 24% (n=407) according to cuff BP but 38% (n=642) according to invasive aortic BP. There was fair agreement (Cohen κ, 0.36) and 72% concordance between cuff and invasive aortic BP for identifying ISH. Among the 28% of subjects (n=471) with misclassification of ISH status by cuff BP, 20% (n=96) of the difference was due to lower cuff systolic BP compared with invasive aortic systolic BP (mean, -16.4 mm Hg [95% CI, -18.7 to -14.1]), whereas 49% (n=231) was from higher cuff diastolic BP compared with invasive aortic diastolic BP (+14.2 mm Hg [95% CI, 11.5-16.9]). In conclusion, compared with invasive BP, cuff BP fails to identify ISH in a sizeable portion of older people and demonstrates the need to improve cuff BP measurements.

Telemedicine allows the remote exchange of medical data between patients and healthcare professionals. It is used to increase patients' access to care and provide effective healthcare services at a distance. During the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telemedicine has thrived and emerged worldwide as an indispensable resource to improve the management of isolated patients due to lockdown or shielding, including those with hypertension. The best proposed healthcare model for telemedicine in hypertension management should include remote monitoring and transmission of vital signs (notably blood pressure) and medication adherence plus education on lifestyle and risk factors, with video consultation as an option. The use of mixed automated feedback services with supervision of a multidisciplinary clinical team (physician, nurse, or pharmacist) is the ideal approach. The indications include screening for suspected hypertension, management of older adults, medically underserved people, high-risk hypertensive patients, patients with multiple diseases, and those isolated due to pandemics or national emergencies.

Blood pressure (BP) is a leading global risk factor. Increasing age is related to changes in cardiovascular physiology that could influence cuff BP measurement, but this has never been examined systematically and was the aim of this study. Cuff BP was compared with invasive aortic BP across decades of age (from 40 to 89 years) using individual-level data from 31 studies (1674 patients undergoing coronary angiography) and 22 different cuff BP devices (19 oscillometric, 1 automated auscultation, 2 mercury sphygmomanometry) from the Invasive Blood Pressure Consortium. Subjects were aged 64±11 years, and 32% female. Cuff systolic BP overestimated invasive aortic systolic BP in those aged 40 to 49 years, but with each older decade of age, there was a progressive shift toward increasing underestimation of aortic systolic BP ( P <0.0001). Conversely, cuff diastolic BP overestimated invasive aortic diastolic BP, and this progressively increased with increasing age ( P <0.0001). Thus, there was a progressive increase in cuff pulse pressure underestimation of invasive aortic PP with increasing decades of age ( P <0.0001). These age-related trends were observed across all categories of BP control. We conclude that cuff BP as an estimate of aortic BP was substantially influenced by increasing age, thus potentially exposing older people to greater chance for misdiagnosis of the true risk related to BP.

Morning blood pressure (BP) surge has been reported to be a prognostic factor for cardiovascular events. Its determinants are still poorly defined, however. In particular, it is not clear whether ethnic differences play a role in determining morning surge (MS) size. Aim of our study was to explore whether differences exist in the size of MS between Japanese and Western European hypertensive patients. We included 2887 untreated hypertensive patients (age 62.3±8.8 years) from a European ambulatory BP monitoring database and 811 hypertensive patients from a Japanese database (Jichi Medical School Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring WAVE1, age 72.3±9.8 years) following the same inclusion criteria. Their 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring recordings were analyzed focusing on MS. Sleep-trough MS was defined as the difference between mean systolic BP during the 2 hours after awakening and mean systolic BP during the 1-hour night period that included the lowest sleep BP level. The sleep-trough MS was higher in Japanese than in European hypertensive patients after adjusting for age and 24-hour mean BP levels (40.1 [95% confidence interval 39.0-41.2] versus 23.0 [22.4-23.5] mm Hg; P<0.001). This difference remained significant after accounting for differences in night-time BP dipping. Age was independently associated with MS in the Japanese database, but not in the European subjects. Our results for the first time show the occurrence of substantial ethnic differences in the degree of MS. These findings may help in understanding the role of ethnic factors in cardiovascular risk assessment and in identifying possible ethnicity-related differences in the most effective measures to be implemented for prevention of BP-related cardiovascular events., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

The objectives of our study were to assess the reproducibility of the trough-to-peak ratio (T/P) and to see whether a high T/P is accompanied by more organ protection or vice versa. The study included 175 (mean+/-SD age, 51+/-9 years) subjects with mild-moderate essential hypertension who had echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy taken from the SAMPLE study (Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Lisinopril Evaluation), an open-label multicenter study. The study included a 3-week washout pretreatment period, a 12-month treatment period with lisinopril (n=84) or lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (n=91) once daily, and a 4-week placebo follow-up period. Results of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and echocardiographic determination of left ventricular mass index (LVMI) were obtained before and after 3 and 12 months of treatment. T/Ps were computed in each patient by dividing the systolic and diastolic blood pressure changes at trough (changes in the last 2 hours of the monitoring period) by those at peak (average of the 2 adjacent hours with the maximal blood pressure reduction between the 2nd and 8th hour from drug intake) after 3 and 12 months of treatment. Average 24-hour blood pressure was similarly reduced at 3 and 12 months. Trough blood pressure changes at 3 and 12 months were closely correlated, as were the corresponding peak blood pressure changes. However, the 3- and 12-month T/Ps correlated to a lesser degree (r<0.42). Furthermore, the reduction of LVMI induced by treatment was similarly correlated with the treatment-induced reduction in 24-hour average, trough, and peak blood pressures but not with the T/Ps. This was also evident when the contribution to LV hypertrophy regression by 24-hour blood pressure changes and T/Ps was assessed in a multivariate regression analysis. In patients with a T/P >/=0.5 or <0.5, the regression of LVMI was similar. In conclusion, peak and trough blood pressure changes are reproducible and predict the regression of LVMI induced by treatment as well as average 24-hour blood pressure. T/Ps are less reproducible, and their value does not predict regression of organ damage by antihypertensive treatment.

Portapres is a noninvasive, beat-to-beat finger blood pressure (BP) monitor that has been shown to accurately estimate 24-hour intra-arterial BP at normal and high BPs. However, no information is available on the ability of this device to accurately track ambulatory BP variability. In 20 ambulatory normotensive and hypertensive subjects, we measured 24-hour BP by Portapres and through a brachial artery catheter. BP and pulse interval variabilities were quantified by (1) the SDs of the mean values (overall variability) and (2) spectral power, computed either by fast Fourier transform and autoregressive modeling of segments of 120-second duration for spectral components from 0.025 to 0.50 Hz or in a very low frequency range (between 0.00003 and 0.01 Hz) by broadband spectral analysis. The 24-hour SD of systolic BP obtained from Portapres (24+/-2 mm Hg) was greater than that obtained intra-arterially (17+/-1 mm Hg, P<0.01), but the overestimation was less evident for diastolic (3+/-1 mm Hg, P<0.01) and mean (3+/-1 mm Hg, P<0.01) BP. The BP spectral power <0.15 Hz was also overestimated by Portapres more for systolic than for diastolic and mean BPs; similar findings were obtained by the fast Fourier transform, the autoregressive approach, and focusing on the broadband spectral analysis. BP spectral power >0.15 Hz obtained by the Portapres was similar during the day but lower during the night when compared with those obtained by intra-arterial recordings (P<0.01). No differences were observed between Portapres and intra-arterial recordings for any estimation of pulse interval variabilities. The overestimation of BP variability by Portapres remained constant over virtually the entire 24-hour recording period. Thus, although clinical studies are still needed to demonstrate the clinical relevance of finger BP variability, our study shows that Portapres can be used with little error to estimate 24-hour BP variabilities if diastolic and mean BPs are used. For systolic BP, the greater error can be minimized by using correction factors.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether the difference between blood pressure measured in the clinic or physician's office and the average daytime blood pressure accurately reflects the blood pressure response of the patient to the physician ("white coat effect" or "white coat hypertension"). We studied 28 hypertensive outpatients (mean age, 41.8+/-11.2 years; age range, 21 to 64 years) of 35 consecutive patients attending our hypertension clinic, in whom (1) continuous noninvasive finger blood pressure was recorded before and during the visit, (2) blood pressure was measured according to the Riva-Rocci-Korotkoff method (mercury sphygmomanometer) with the patient in the supine position, and (3) daytime ambulatory blood pressure was monitored with a SpaceLabs 90207 device. The peak blood pressure increase recorded directly during the visit was compared with the difference between clinic and daytime average ambulatory blood pressures. Compared with previsit values, peak increases in finger systolic and diastolic blood pressures during the visit to the clinic were 38.2+/-3.1 and 20.7+/-1.6 mm Hg, respectively (mean+/-SEM, P<.01 for both). Daytime average systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 135.5+/-2.5 and 89.2+/-1.9 mm Hg, with both lower than the corresponding clinic blood pressure values (146.6+/-3.6 and 94.9+/-2.2 mm Hg, P<.01). These differences, however, were <30% of the peak finger blood pressure increases during the physician's visit, to which these increases showed no relation. Although the visit to the physician's office was associated with tachycardia (9.0+/-1.6 bpm, P<.01), there was no difference between clinic and daytime average heart rates. These data indicate that the clinic-daytime average blood pressure difference does not reflect the alerting reaction and the pressure response elicited by the physician's visit and thus is not a reliable measure of the white coat effect.

The aim of our study was to assess whether the Finapres device is able to accurately monitor not only average blood pressure values but also blood pressure variability. To examine this issue, we analyzed 30-minute recordings of finger and intra-arterial pressure simultaneously obtained at rest in 14 patients. We compared systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, pulse interval (the reciprocal of heart rate), overall variability (standard deviation), and specific time-domain and frequency-domain components. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and pulse interval spectral powers were computed by fast Fourier transform over three frequency bands: low frequency (0.025 to 0.07 Hz), midfrequency (0.07 to 0.14 Hz), and high frequency (0.14 to 0.35 Hz). The coherence, ie, the degree of association between blood pressure and pulse interval powers obtained by the two techniques, was also assessed. Standard deviations of diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and pulse interval were similar when assessed from the two recordings, whereas standard deviation of systolic blood pressure was overestimated by analysis of finger pressure recordings. All powers of diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure and high-frequency powers of systolic blood pressure estimated from analysis of finger blood pressure tracings were superimposable to those obtained by analyzing invasive recordings. Low-frequency and midfrequency powers of intra-arterial systolic blood pressure were significantly overestimated by the analysis of finger blood pressure tracings (+13.7 +/- 4.4 mm Hg2, P < .01, and +2.3 +/- 0.9 mm Hg2, P < .05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

This study evaluated the accuracy of blood pressure values provided by the Spacelabs 90202 and 90207 devices in comparison with intra-arterial recording in 19 subjects at rest and in nine subjects in ambulatory conditions (Oxford method). At rest Spacelabs monitors reflected intra-arterial systolic blood pressure values very closely but overestimated to a considerable extent intra-arterial diastolic blood pressure (Spacelabs-intra-arterial differences, -0.8 +/- 9.2, NS, and 9.1 +/- 8.8 mm Hg, p less than 0.01, for systolic and diastolic blood pressures, respectively). In ambulatory conditions Spacelabs-intra-arterial average differences in 24-hour values were +0.4 +/- 5.1 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure (NS) and +14.0 +/- 2.9 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure (p less than 0.01) when group data were considered. The performance of both Spacelabs devices was worse when assessed in individual subjects or for each hourly interval. In spite of these differences between noninvasive and intra-arterial absolute blood pressure values, however, Spacelabs 90202 and 90207 monitors were able to faithfully reflect directional hour-to-hour changes in intra-arterial blood pressure (chi 2 = 18.2 and chi 2 = 23.1 for systolic and diastolic blood pressures, respectively, p less than 0.01). No differences were found between the performance of the two Spacelabs devices. Thus, although the absolute accuracy of blood pressure values provided by these monitors in ambulatory subjects is still limited, they seem to be suitable for studies aimed at assessing 24-hour blood pressure profiles quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

Cardiovascular effects of stress in humans are often assessed by application of physical or emotional stimuli in a laboratory environment. Although this method provides important information, these procedures have several limitations. First, blood pressure and heart rate responses to laboratory stressors are characterized by a limited within-subject reproducibility. Second, there is poor correlation between blood pressure and heart rate responses to different stressors, which implies that individual reaction to stress may be estimated differently according to the test used. Finally, these responses bear only a limited relation to 24-hour or daytime blood pressure variability, that is, they reflect to only a limited extent the tendency of blood pressure to vary during daily activities. If assessed by techniques that allow blood pressure to be continuously recorded for 24 hours in ambulatory subjects, blood pressure variability represents a possible approach to observation of cardiovascular reactivity away from an artificial laboratory environment. However, whether blood pressure variability should be expressed as a percentage or in absolute values is controversial. Furthermore, although naturally occurring stress may markedly increase blood pressure, 24-hour blood pressure variations also depend on factors that are not related to emotional stimuli. Thus, the study of cardiovascular responses to stress in humans encounters several problems, regardless of the method used.

Blood pressure and pulse interval are characterized not only by erratic variations but also by rhythmic fluctuations at low-, mid-, and high-frequency (0.025-0.07, 0.07-0.14, and 0.14-0.35 Hz, respectively). However, information on these phenomena has largely been derived from analysis of short-term recordings taken in standardized laboratory conditions. In seven normotensive and 10 untreated mild essential hypertensive subjects, power spectrum analysis was performed on the intra-arterial blood pressure and pulse interval signal collected over a 24-hour period using the fast Fourier transform algorithm and splitting the recording into contiguous segments of 256 beats. About 70% of the segments were suitable for the analysis; the segments excluded for a nonstationary signal amounted to only 30%. All powers were characterized by a high segment-to-segment variability, but in each subject the mid- and high-frequency powers of diastolic blood pressure and the mid-frequency power of systolic blood pressure were markedly reduced during the night as compared with the daytime period, whereas the opposite occurred for the low- and high-frequency powers of the pulse interval. Over the 24-hour period, mid- and high-frequency powers of blood pressure were positively correlated to each other, but both accounted for less than 25% of the 24-hour blood pressure variance. No difference between mean normalized power values of normotensive and hypertensive subjects was observed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)