The white coat effect is idiosyncratic to the clinic setting, does not predict cardiovascular risk, and is not closely related to overall blood pressure variability.
How should the white-coat effect be defined and measured in hypertensive patients?
The white-coat effect is an idiosyncratic response to the clinic setting that is present in most hypertensive patients but does not predict cardiovascular risk.
The white coat effect is conceived as a measure of the blood pressure response to a clinic visit, but there is no agreement as to exactly how it should be defined. The most widely used definition is the difference between the average clinic and daytime ambulatory blood pressures, but other methods that have been used include the difference between clinic and home pressures, measurements using ambulatory blood pressures only, clinic measurements only, and laboratory (reactivity) testing. Few studies have compared the different methods, but the reactivity method has reported bigger changes of blood pressure and heart rate than the others. The effect tends to be greater in older than younger patients, in women than in men, but is present to a greater or lesser degree in almost all hypertensive patients. It is diminished but not obliterated by drug treatment. It is not closely related to overall blood pressure variability, and does not predict cardiovascular risk. The white coat effect appears to be idiosyncratic to the clinic setting.
Pickering et al. (Sun,) conducted a review in Hypertension. White-coat effect was evaluated. The white coat effect is idiosyncratic to the clinic setting, does not predict cardiovascular risk, and is not closely related to overall blood pressure variability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: