Korean J Intern Med.  2015 Sep;30(5):610-619. 10.3904/kjim.2015.30.5.610.

Discordance between ambulatory versus clinic blood pressure according to global cardiovascular risk group

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. kimsg@hanyang.ac.kr
  • 2Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 3Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea.
  • 4Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon, Korea.
  • 5Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
  • 6Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 7Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 8Department of Preventive Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS
The detection of white coat hypertension (WCH), treated normalized hypertension, and masked hypertension (MH) is important to improve the effectiveness of hypertension management. However, whether global cardiovascular risk (GCR) profile has any effect on the discordance between ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) and clinic blood pressure (CBP) is unknown.
METHODS
Data from 1,916 subjects, taken from the Korean Multicenter Registry for ABP monitoring, were grouped according to diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for CBP and ABP (140/90 and 135/85 mmHg, respectively). GCR was assessed using European Society of Hypertension 2007 guidelines.
RESULTS
The mean subject age was 54.1 ± 14.9 years, and 48.9% of patients were female. The discordancy rate between ABP and CBP in the untreated and treated patients was 32.5% and 26.5%, respectively (p = 0.02). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension and MH was 14.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Discordance between ABP and CBP was lower in the very high added-risk group compared to the moderate added-risk group (odds ratio [OR], 0.649; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487 to 0.863; p = 0.003). The prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension was also lower in the very high added-risk group (OR, 0.451; 95% CI, 0.311 to 0.655).
CONCLUSIONS
Discordance between ABP and CBP was observed more frequently in untreated subjects than in treated subjects, and less frequently in the very high added-risk group, which was due mainly to the lower prevalence of WCH or treated normalized hypertension.

Keyword

Risk assessment; Blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory; Masked hypertension; White coat hypertension; Hypertension

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
*Blood Pressure
*Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory
Chi-Square Distribution
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Humans
Logistic Models
Male
Masked Hypertension/*diagnosis/epidemiology/physiopathology
Middle Aged
Multivariate Analysis
Observer Variation
Odds Ratio
*Office Visits
Predictive Value of Tests
Prevalence
Registries
Reproducibility of Results
Republic of Korea/epidemiology
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
White Coat Hypertension/*diagnosis/epidemiology/physiopathology
Full Text Links
  • KJIM
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr