Key result
Intensive clinic BP targets are linked to ~66% lower masked uncontrolled hypertension rates versus conventional targets.
Why the study?
Recent literature advocates intensive BP control while standard guidelines suggest higher thresholds, leaving the impact of different clinic BP targets on the prevalence and predictors of MUCH and WUCH unclear.
Does adopting an intensive clinic blood pressure target (< 130/80 mmHg) compared to a conventional target (< 140/90 mmHg) alter the prevalence and predictors of masked uncontrolled hypertension and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension?
Cross-Sectional (n=1,601)
Yes
Does adopting an intensive clinic blood pressure target (< 130/80 mmHg) compared to a conventional target (< 140/90 mmHg) alter the prevalence and predictors of masked uncontrolled hypertension and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension?
Adopting an intensive clinic blood pressure target (< 130/80 mmHg) significantly reduces the prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension compared to conventional targets, offering a more accurate assessment of true blood pressure control.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Intensive targets associated with lower MUCH prevalence; leaves open whether this improves outcomes or warrants practice change.
BACKGROUND: Identifying masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) and white-coat uncontrolled hypertension (WUCH) without ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring is challenging. Recent literature advocates intensive blood pressure (BP) control, but standard guidelines still suggest a clinic BP threshold of ≥ 149/90 mmHg to diagnose hypertension. This study explored the impact of different clinic BP targets on the prevalence and predictors of MUCH and WUCH. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study included 1,601 patients with hypertension from the Korean Ambulatory Blood Pressure registry, all with valid ABP records. Two clinic BP targets were evaluated: an intensive target (< 130/80 mmHg) and a conventional target (< 140/90 mmHg). Controlled hypertension was defined as a 24-hour mean ABP < 130/80 mmHg in patients treated with antihypertensive drugs who had a clinic BP below these targets. RESULTS: The prevalence of MUCH decreased significantly with the intensive target (15.5%) versus the conventional target (45.8%). In contrast, the prevalence of WUCH increased only marginally with the intensive targets. Most patients with MUCH (75.9%) had a clinic BP between 130/80 mmHg and 139/89 mmHg when MUCH was classified using the conventional target. For predicting MUCH, factors such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use, body mass index, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and use of ≥ 2 antihypertensive drugs were significant under the intensive target, whereas clinic BP, LVMI, alcohol intake, stroke history, and use of ≥ 2 antihypertensive drugs were relevant under the conventional target. CONCLUSION: Adopting the intensive clinic BP target (< 130/80 mmHg) notably reduced the prevalence of MUCH, with a slight increase in WUCH, offering a more accurate assessment of BP control than the conventional target.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=1,601). Intensive clinic blood pressure target (< 130/80 mmHg) vs. Conventional clinic blood pressure target (< 140/90 mmHg) was evaluated on Prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) among patients achieving the clinic BP target. Adopting an intensive clinic blood pressure target (< 130/80 mmHg) significantly reduced the prevalence of masked uncontrolled hypertension to 15.5% compared to 45.8% with the conventional target.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: