Key result
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring identified masked hypertension in 38.6% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had normal office blood pressure.
Why the study?
Routine office BP measurement does not detect phenotypes like masked hypertension in patients with diabetes, making ambulatory BP monitoring valuable to identify adverse cardiovascular risks.
Does ambulatory blood pressure monitoring identify masked hypertension and abnormal dipping patterns in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Cross-Sectional (n=57)
No
Does ambulatory blood pressure monitoring identify masked hypertension and abnormal dipping patterns in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring reveals a high prevalence of masked hypertension and abnormal dipping patterns in type 2 diabetic patients who are normotensive by office blood pressure measurements.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ABPM may detect masked or white-coat hypertension in diabetes beyond office readings; leaves open effects on outcomes or management.
Systemic hypertension (HTN) is one of the most common comorbidities in diabetes mellitus (DM). Diabetic patients with HTN have a several-fold increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) as compared to normotensive nondiabetic controls. Routine office blood pressure (BP) measurement does not help diagnose hypertensive phenotypes such as masked hypertension, white coat hypertension, etc. Hence, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a valuable tool for diagnosing these conditions, as it can help identify adverse cardiovascular complications. AIMS: To study the patterns of ambulatory blood pressure profile in normotensive patients with type 2 DM. METHODOLOGY: This was a cross-sectional study conducted among all patients aged 18 years and above who attended the endocrinology outpatient department of a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: The total number of participants in the study was 57, with a mean age of 55.26 years (SD 13.52) among patients. Males comprised the majority, at 32 (56.1%). Masked hypertension was found in 22 (38.6%) patients who had normal blood pressure on routine office BP measurements. Among the masked hypertensive group, 10 (45.5%) patients were dippers, nine (40.9%) were non-dippers, and the rest were reverse dippers. Of those with masked hypertension, 4.54% (n=1) had isolated daytime hypertension, 31.8% (n=7) had isolated nocturnal hypertension, and 63.63% (n=14) had both. Age was the factor that influenced masked hypertension in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The present study underscores the need to incorporate routine utilization of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with type 2 DM for early identification of hypertension. Solely depending upon office blood pressure monitoring might not be sufficient to detect the hypertensive phenotypes in patients with type 2 DM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manjunath et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (n=57). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring vs. Routine office blood pressure measurement was evaluated on Prevalence of masked hypertension. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring identified masked hypertension in 38.6% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had normal office blood pressure.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: