Ghada Youssef , Sherif Nagy , Ahmed El-gengehe , Amr Abdel Aal , Magdy Abdel Hamid
{"title":"隐匿不受控制的高血压:患病率和预测因素","authors":"Ghada Youssef , Sherif Nagy , Ahmed El-gengehe , Amr Abdel Aal , Magdy Abdel Hamid","doi":"10.1016/j.ehj.2018.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There are limited data on ‘masked uncontrolled hypertension’ (MUCH) in patients with treated and apparently well-controlled BP is unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To define the prevalence and predictors of MUCH among hypertensive patients with controlled office blood pressure.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One hundred ninety-nine hypertensive patients presented to the specialized hypertension clinics at two University Hospitals. All patients had controlled office blood pressure (less than 140/90 mmHg). Patients were assessed regarding history, clinical examination, and laboratory data. All patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for 24 h, within a week after the index office visit. MUCH was diagnosed if average 24-h ABPM was elevated (systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) despite controlled clinic BP.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Sixty-six patients (33.2%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 53.5 ± 9.3 years, 60.6% men). MUCH was mostly caused by the poor control of nocturnal BP; with the percentage of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that due to daytime BP elevation (57.3% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001). The most common predictors of MUCH were smoking, DM and positive family history of DM.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control is high. Office BP monitoring alone is thus inadequate to ascertain optimal BP control because many patients have an elevated nocturnal BP. ABPM is needed to confirm proper BP control, especially in patients with high cardiovascular risk profile. Smoking, DM and positive family history of DM were the most common predictors of MUCH.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44962,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Heart Journal","volume":"70 4","pages":"Pages 369-373"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehj.2018.10.001","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Masked uncontrolled hypertension: Prevalence and predictors\",\"authors\":\"Ghada Youssef , Sherif Nagy , Ahmed El-gengehe , Amr Abdel Aal , Magdy Abdel Hamid\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ehj.2018.10.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>There are limited data on ‘masked uncontrolled hypertension’ (MUCH) in patients with treated and apparently well-controlled BP is unknown.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To define the prevalence and predictors of MUCH among hypertensive patients with controlled office blood pressure.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One hundred ninety-nine hypertensive patients presented to the specialized hypertension clinics at two University Hospitals. All patients had controlled office blood pressure (less than 140/90 mmHg). Patients were assessed regarding history, clinical examination, and laboratory data. All patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for 24 h, within a week after the index office visit. MUCH was diagnosed if average 24-h ABPM was elevated (systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) despite controlled clinic BP.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Sixty-six patients (33.2%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 53.5 ± 9.3 years, 60.6% men). MUCH was mostly caused by the poor control of nocturnal BP; with the percentage of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that due to daytime BP elevation (57.3% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001). The most common predictors of MUCH were smoking, DM and positive family history of DM.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control is high. Office BP monitoring alone is thus inadequate to ascertain optimal BP control because many patients have an elevated nocturnal BP. ABPM is needed to confirm proper BP control, especially in patients with high cardiovascular risk profile. Smoking, DM and positive family history of DM were the most common predictors of MUCH.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Egyptian Heart Journal\",\"volume\":\"70 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 369-373\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehj.2018.10.001\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Egyptian Heart Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110260818301339\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110260818301339","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11
摘要
背景:在接受治疗且明显控制良好的BP患者中,关于“隐性未控制高血压”(many)的数据有限,尚不清楚。目的了解血压控制的高血压患者中MUCH的患病率及预测因素。方法199例高血压患者在两所大学附属医院高血压专科门诊就诊。所有患者的办公室血压均得到控制(低于140/90 mmHg)。评估患者的病史、临床检查和实验室数据。所有患者在指数办公室访问后一周内进行24 h的动态血压监测(ABPM)。如果平均24小时ABPM升高(收缩压 ≥ 130 mmHg和/或舒张压 ≥ 80 mmHg),尽管临床血压控制,但诊断为MUCH。结果66例(33.2%)患者符合24 h ABPM标准,平均年龄53.5 ± 9.3 岁,男性占60.6%。多因夜间血压控制不佳所致;其中,仅因夜间血压升高引起MUCH的患者比例几乎是因白天血压升高引起的两倍(57.3% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001)。吸烟、糖尿病和糖尿病家族史是高血压的最常见预测因素。结论隐蔽性血压控制亚优的患病率较高。因此,仅办公室血压监测不足以确定最佳血压控制,因为许多患者夜间血压升高。需要ABPM确认适当的血压控制,特别是在心血管风险高的患者中。吸烟、糖尿病和糖尿病家族史是最常见的预测因素。
Masked uncontrolled hypertension: Prevalence and predictors
Background
There are limited data on ‘masked uncontrolled hypertension’ (MUCH) in patients with treated and apparently well-controlled BP is unknown.
Objectives
To define the prevalence and predictors of MUCH among hypertensive patients with controlled office blood pressure.
Methods
One hundred ninety-nine hypertensive patients presented to the specialized hypertension clinics at two University Hospitals. All patients had controlled office blood pressure (less than 140/90 mmHg). Patients were assessed regarding history, clinical examination, and laboratory data. All patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for 24 h, within a week after the index office visit. MUCH was diagnosed if average 24-h ABPM was elevated (systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) despite controlled clinic BP.
Results
Sixty-six patients (33.2%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 53.5 ± 9.3 years, 60.6% men). MUCH was mostly caused by the poor control of nocturnal BP; with the percentage of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that due to daytime BP elevation (57.3% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001). The most common predictors of MUCH were smoking, DM and positive family history of DM.
Conclusion
The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control is high. Office BP monitoring alone is thus inadequate to ascertain optimal BP control because many patients have an elevated nocturnal BP. ABPM is needed to confirm proper BP control, especially in patients with high cardiovascular risk profile. Smoking, DM and positive family history of DM were the most common predictors of MUCH.
期刊介绍:
The Egyptian Heart Journal is the official journal of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology. It is an international journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of cardiovascular disease, including original clinical studies and translational investigations. The journal publishes research, review articles, case reports and commentary articles, as well as editorials interpreting and commenting on the research presented. In addition, it provides a forum for the exchange of information on all aspects of cardiovascular medicine, including educational issues.