Search

Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is at higher cardiovascular risk than controlled hypertension (CH). In previous studies, patients with MUCH were considered as a unique group though those receiving ≤2 drugs could be defined as having nonresistant MUCH (NRMUCH) and those receiving ≥3 drugs as having resistant MUCH (RMUCH). The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of NRMUCH and RMUCH detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Cardiovascular risk was evaluated in 738 treated hypertensive patients with normal clinic BP. Patients were classified as having CH or MUCH if daytime BP < or ≥ 135/85 mmHg, respectively, regardless of nighttime BP, or CH or MUCH if 24-h BP < or ≥ 130/80 mmHg, respectively, regardless of daytime or nighttime BP. By daytime or 24-h BP, the authors detected 523 (71%), 178 (24%), and 37 (5%) or 463 (63%), 231 (31%), and 44 (6%) patients with CH, NRMUCH, and RMUCH, respectively. During the follow-up (median 10 years), 148 events occurred. After adjustment for covariates, compared to CH, the hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI), for cardiovascular events was 1.81, 1.27-2.57, and 2.99, 1.73-5.16, in NRMUCH and RMUCH defined by daytime BP, respectively, and 1.58, 1.12-2.23, and 2.21, 1.27-3.82, in NRMUCH and RMUCH defined by 24-h BP, respectively. If RMUCH was compared with NRMUCH, the risk tended to be higher in RMUCH but did not attain statistical significance (P = .08 and P = .23 by daytime and 24-h BP thresholds, respectively). In conclusion, both NRMUCH and RMUCH are at increased cardiovascular risk than CH., (© 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) in masked and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH and WUCH, respectively) has not yet been investigated. We assessed the risk of new-onset AF in MUCH and WUCH detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring., Methods: The occurrence of AF was evaluated in 2,135 treated hypertensive patients aged >40 years, with baseline sinus rhythm, by electrocardiogram. Controlled hypertension (CH) was defined as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP, regardless of nighttime BP, <135/85 mm Hg, MUCH as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135 and/or ≥85 mm Hg, WUCH as clinic BP ≥140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg and daytime BP <135/85 mm Hg, and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH) as clinic BP ≥140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg and daytime BP ≥135 and/or ≥85 mm Hg., Results: MUCH was identified in 203 patients (9.5% of all the population, 29% of those with normal clinic BP) and WUCH in 503 patients (23.5% of all the population, 35% of those with high clinic BP). During the follow-up (mean 9.7 years), 116 cases of AF occurred. After adjustment for covariates, patients with MUCH (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.85) and SUCH (hazard ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.21) had higher risk of new-onset AF than those with CH, whereas those with WUCH (hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval, 0.59-2.13) did not., Conclusions: When compared with patients with CH, those with MUCH and SUCH are at higher risk (approximately doubled) of new-onset AF, whereas those with WUCH are not., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2020. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH), that is, nonhypertensive clinic but high out-of-office blood pressure (BP) in treated patients is at increased cardiovascular risk than controlled hypertension (CH), that is, nonhypertensive clinic and out-of-office BP. Using ambulatory BP, MUCH can be defined as daytime and/or nighttime and/or 24-hour BP above thresholds. It is unclear whether different definitions of MUCH have similar prognostic information. This study assessed the prognostic value of MUCH defined by different ambulatory BP criteria., Methods: Cardiovascular events were evaluated in 738 treated hypertensive patients with nonhypertensive clinic BP. Among them, participants were classified as having CH or daytime MUCH (BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) regardless of nighttime BP (group 1), nighttime MUCH (BP ≥120/70 mm Hg) regardless of daytime BP (group 2), 24-hour MUCH (BP ≥130/80 mm Hg) regardless of daytime or nighttime BP (group 3), daytime MUCH only (group 4), nighttime MUCH only (group 5), and daytime + nighttime MUCH (group 6)., Results: We detected 215 (29%), 357 (48.5%), 275 (37%), 42 (5.5%),184 (25%) and 173 (23.5%) patients with MUCH from group 1 to 6, respectively. During the follow-up (10 ± 5 years), 148 events occurred in patients with CH and MUCH. After adjustment for covariates, compared with patients with CH, the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for cardiovascular events was 2.01 (1.45-2.79), 1.53 (1.09-2.15), 1.69 (1.22-2.34), 1.52 (0.80-2.91), 1.15 (0.74-1.80), and 2.29 (1.53-3.42) from group 1 to 6, respectively., Conclusions: The prognostic impact of MUCH defined according to various ambulatory BP definitions may be different., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.)

The prognostic relevance of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) is incompletely clear, and its global impact on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on the prognostic value of MUCH. We searched for articles assessing outcome in patients with MUCH compared with those with controlled hypertension (CH) and reporting adjusted hazard ratio and 95% CI. We identified 6 studies using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (12 610 patients with 933 events) and 5 using home blood pressure measurement (17 742 patients with 394 events). The global population included 30 352 patients who experienced 1327 events. Selected studies had cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality as primary outcome, and the main result is a composite of these events. The overall adjusted hazard ratio was 1.80 (95% CI, 1.57-2.06) for MUCH versus CH. Subgroup meta-analysis showed that adjusted hazard ratio was 1.83 (95% CI, 1.52-2.21) in studies using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and 1.75 (95% CI, 1.38-2.20) in those using home blood pressure measurement. Risk was significantly higher in MUCH than in CH independently of follow-up length and types of studied events. MUCH was at significantly higher risk than CH in all ethnic groups, but the highest hazard ratio was found in studies, including black patients. Risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality is significantly higher in patients with MUCH than in those with CH. MUCH detected by ambulatory or home blood pressure measurement seems to convey similar prognostic information.

Background: Prognosis of masked and white coat uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH and WCUCH, respectively) detected by ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring is incompletely clear in elderly treated hypertensive patients. We evaluated prognosis of MUCH and WCUCH identified by ambulatory BP monitoring in this setting., Methods: The occurrence of a composite endpoint was evaluated in 1,191 elderly treated hypertensive patients. Controlled hypertension (CH) was defined as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP <130/80 mm Hg, MUCH as clinic BP <140/90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP ≥130 and/or ≥80 mm Hg, WCUCH as clinic BP ≥140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP <130/80 mm Hg and sustained uncontrolled hypertension (SUCH) as clinic BP ≥140 and/or ≥90 mm Hg and 24-hour BP ≥130 and/or ≥80 mm Hg., Results: MUCH was identified in 142 patients (12% of all the population, 34% of those with normal clinic BP) and WCUCH in 230 patients (19% of all the population, 30% of those with high clinic BP). During the follow-up (9.1 ± 4.9 years, range 0.4-20 years), 392 events occurred. After adjustment for various covariates, patients with MUCH (hazard ratio (HR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.29, P = 0.01) and SUCH (HR 1.81, 95% CI, 1.35-2.42, P < 0.001) had significantly higher cardiovascular risk than those with CH, whereas those with WCUCH (HR 1.09, 95% CI, 0.74-1.60, P = 0.66) had not significantly higher risk., Conclusions: In elderly treated hypertensive patients evaluated by ambulatory BP monitoring, compared to individuals with CH, those with MUCH have significantly higher risk and those with WCUCH have slightly and not significantly higher risk., (© American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2017. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

BackgroundThe prognostic relevance of white-coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MH) is controversial. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis on the prognostic value of WCH and MH diagnosed by ambulatory monitoring in initially untreated subjects.MethodsWe searched for articles evaluating cardiovascular outcome in WCH or MH or sustained hypertension (SH) in comparison with normotension, investigating untreated subjects at baseline or performing separate analysis for untreated or treated subjects, and reporting adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsEight studies were identified. Five whole studies and untreated groups of three others were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled population consisted of 7,961 subjects who experienced 696 events. When compared with normotension, the overall adjusted HR was 0.96 (95% CI 0.65-1.42) for WCH (P = 0.85), 2.09 (1.55-2.81) for MH (P = 0.0001), and 2.59 (2.0-3.35) for SH (P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference between WCH and normotension according to normotensive subjects source (same or different study population) and follow-up length. Where reported, prevalence of drug therapy was higher in subjects with WCH than in those with normotension at follow-up.ConclusionsCardiovascular risk is not significantly different between WCH and normotension, regardless of normotensive population type and follow-up length. However, at follow-up drug therapy was more frequent in WCH than in normotension and its possible impact on outcome should be evaluated in future studies. MH shows significantly higher risk than normotension, although the best way for its detection and treatment remains to be established.American Journal of Hypertension (2011). doi:10.1038/ajh.2010.203 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]