Key result
Pronounced white-coat effect in diabetes is linked to significantly improved survival.
Why the study?
Assessing white-coat hypertension in patients with diabetes is complicated by stricter clinic blood pressure targets (<130/80 mmHg), the absence of accepted ambulatory or home-based thresholds, and controversies regarding its prognostic implications and need for treatment.
Does white-coat hypertension increase mortality risk or warrant antihypertensive treatment in patients with diabetes?
Does white-coat hypertension increase mortality risk or warrant antihypertensive treatment in patients with diabetes?
Antihypertensive treatment of white-coat hypertension in patients with diabetes is unjustified because white-coat blood pressure elevation in diabetes is associated with improved survival and treatment risks excessive ambulatory blood pressure reduction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
White-coat hypertension in diabetes was associated with improved survival; leaves open whether ambulatory monitoring should guide therapy.
Blood pressure (BP) levels in the doctor's clinic may not always reflect those of daily living, as indicated by 24-h ambulatory or self-monitoring measurements. Simple logic implies that treatment should be guided by the actual BP levels, rather than by imprecise clinic measurements. On average, BP measured in the clinic is higher than out-of-office BP. This difference occurs in a considerable number of patients with white-coat hypertension (WCH). The issue is complicated, since most studies define WCH as an elevated office BP in patients with normal awake ambulatory BP. However, the “awake” state may not fully reflect the 24-h BP load. Average 24-h BP, and particularly that during sleep, which is more likely to be higher in subjects with diabetes (1,2), could be elevated in a patient with normal awake BP. The presence of abnormal clinic BP in such a patient discloses true hypertension rather than WCH. Indeed, among 4,121 subjects referred for ambulatory BP monitoring, 4.5% had isolated abnormal sleep BP (>120/70 mmHg) and normal 24-h BP (3). Nevertheless, in this presentation, we assume that the common definition of WCH is elevated clinic readings with normal awake BP. Assessment of WCH in diabetes is complicated by the fact that normal BP measured at the clinic is defined as <130/80 mmHg (as opposed to 140/90 mmHg in the general population), whereas there are still no accepted thresholds for ambulatory or home-based BP levels. Characteristics unique to the white-coat response in patients with diabetes, associated prognostic implications, and the need for treatment are discussed. The issue of prevalence is not marginal: we have found that compared with subjects without diabetes who were referred for 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, those treated for diabetes were less likely to have WCH (and more likely to have masked hypertension) (1). A similar conclusion …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bursztyn et al. (2009) conducted a review in White-coat hypertension in patients with diabetes. White-coat hypertension (clinic-awake systolic blood pressure difference) vs. Subjects without diabetes or lower quartiles of white-coat effect was evaluated on All-cause mortality / survival (p=<0.04). White-coat hypertension in patients with diabetes was lower in prevalence (8.5% vs 11.4%; OR 0.72) and associated with significantly improved survival in the highest white-coat effect quartile (P<0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: