Key result
ABPM and treatment review are linked to a ~52% reduction in diagnosed resistant hypertension.
Why the study?
Resistant hypertension is frequently overdiagnosed when based exclusively on office blood pressure measurements, leading to uncertainty about true prevalence.
Does ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and treatment evaluation reduce the overdiagnosis of resistant hypertension compared to office measurements alone?
Cohort
Does ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and treatment evaluation reduce the overdiagnosis of resistant hypertension compared to office measurements alone?
Systematic use of ABPM and optimization of antihypertensive treatment significantly reduces the overdiagnosis of resistant hypertension by identifying pseudoresistance.
May reduce overdiagnosis of resistant hypertension in real-world cohorts; leaves open whether systematic ABPM adoption improves outcomes.
Resistant hypertension is frequently overdiagnosed when based exclusively on office blood pressure measurements. In a large real-world cohort from Argentina, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and evaluation of treatment adequacy reduced the prevalence of resistant hypertension from 12.2% to 5.8%, with inadequate pharmacological therapy and white-coat effect being the main contributors to pseudoresistance. These findings support systematic use of ABPM and optimization of antihypertensive treatment before labeling patients as truly resistant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Espeche et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Resistant hypertension. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and evaluation of treatment adequacy vs. Office blood pressure measurements was evaluated on Prevalence of resistant hypertension. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and evaluation of treatment adequacy reduced the diagnosed prevalence of resistant hypertension from 12.2% to 5.8%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: