Very high added global cardiovascular risk was associated with a 35% lower odds of discordance between ambulatory and clinic blood pressure compared to moderate added risk (OR 0.649).
Cross-Sectional (n=1,916)
Yes
Does global cardiovascular risk profile affect the discordance between ambulatory blood pressure and clinic blood pressure in patients evaluated for high blood pressure?
Discordance between ambulatory and clinic blood pressure is less frequent in patients with very high global cardiovascular risk, primarily due to a lower prevalence of white coat or treated normalized hypertension.
Odds Ratio: 0.649 (95% CI 0.487–0.863)
p-value: p=0.003
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The detection of white coat hypertension (WCH), treated normalized hypertension, and masked hypertension (MH) is important to improve the effectiveness of hypertension management. However, whether global cardiovascular risk (GCR) profile has any effect on the discordance between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and clinic blood pressure (CBP) is unknown. METHODS: Data from 1,916 subjects, taken from the Korean Multicenter Registry for ABP monitoring, were grouped according to diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for CBP and ABP (140/90 and 135/85 mmHg, respectively). GCR was assessed using European Society of Hypertension 2007 guidelines. RESULTS: The mean subject age was 54.1 ± 14.9 years, and 48.9% of patients were female. The discordancy rate between ABP and CBP in the untreated and treated patients was 32.5% and 26.5%, respectively (p = 0.02). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension and MH was 14.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Discordance between ABP and CBP was lower in the very high added-risk group compared to the moderate added-risk group (odds ratio OR, 0.649; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.487 to 0.863; p = 0.003). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension was also lower in the very high added-risk group (OR, 0.451; 95% CI, 0.311 to 0.655). CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between ABP and CBP was observed more frequently in untreated subjects than in treated subjects, and less frequently in the very high added-risk group, which was due mainly to the lower prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension.
Shin et al. (Thu,) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=1,916). Very high added global cardiovascular risk vs. Moderate added global cardiovascular risk was evaluated on Discordance between ambulatory blood pressure and clinic blood pressure (OR 0.649, 95% CI 0.487 to 0.863, p=0.003). Very high added global cardiovascular risk was associated with a 35% lower odds of discordance between ambulatory and clinic blood pressure compared to moderate added risk (OR 0.649).