Comparative Analysis of American Heart Association and European Society of Hypertension Ambulatory Blood Pressure Thresholds for Diagnosing Hypertension in Children

Prevalence of Pediatric Masked Hypertension and Risk of Subclinical Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Masked hypertension (MH) occurs when office blood pressure is normal, but hypertension is confirmed using out-of-office blood pressure measures. Hypertension is a risk factor for subclinical cardiovascular outcomes, including left ventricular hypertrophy, increased left ventricular mass index, carotid intima media thickness, and pulse wave velocity. However, the risk factors for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring defined MH and its association with subclinical cardiovascular outcomes are unclear. A systematic literature search on 9 databases included English publications from 1974 to 2023. Pediatric MH prevalence was stratified by disease comorbidities and compared with the general pediatric population. We also compared the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy, and mean differences in left ventricular mass index, carotid intima media thickness, and pulse wave velocity between MH versus normotensive pediatric patients. Of 2199 screened studies, 136 studies (n=28 612; ages 4-25 years) were included. The prevalence of MH in the general pediatric population was 10.4% (95% CI, 8.00-12.80). Compared with the general pediatric population, the risk ratio (RR) of MH was significantly greater in children with coarctation of the aorta (RR, 1.91), solid-organ or stem-cell transplant (RR, 2.34), chronic kidney disease (RR, 2.44), and sickle cell disease (RR, 1.33). MH patients had increased risk of subclinical cardiovascular outcomes compared with normotensive patients, including higher left ventricular mass index (mean difference, 3.86 g/m2.7 [95% CI, 2.51-5.22]), left ventricular hypertrophy (odds ratio, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.50-3.96]), and higher pulse wave velocity (mean difference, 0.30 m/s [95% CI, 0.14-0.45]). The prevalence of MH is significantly elevated among children with various comorbidities. Children with MH have evidence of subclinical cardiovascular outcomes, which increases their risk of long-term cardiovascular disease.

Impact of the 2022 American Heart Association pediatric ambulatory blood pressure monitoring statement on the diagnosis of hypertension

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of hypertension and hypertension-induced target organ injury by the 2022 American Heart Association (AHA) ambulatory blood pressure threshold as compared with 2014 AHA and 2016 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) thresholds has not been evaluated.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study (n = 291, aged 5-18 years, at a tertiary care outpatient clinic), we compared 2022 AHA with 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds (revised with 2018 adult ESH thresholds where applicable) to diagnose ambulatory hypertension (AH), and detect ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) and left ventricular target organ injury (LVTOI).

RESULTS

The 2022 AHA threshold diagnosed significantly more AH (53%) than the 2014 AHA (42%, p < 0.01) and ESH (36%, p < 0.001) thresholds. The 2022 AHA threshold demonstrated only a moderate agreement with the 2014 AHA (kappa (k) = 0.77) and ESH (k = 0.66) thresholds to diagnose AH. Adjusted logistic regression analysis found that only the 2022 AHA threshold predicted elevated AASI significantly (odds ratio 2.40, 95% CI 1.09, 5.25, p = 0.02; AUC 0.61, p < 0.01). In those with elevated AASI, more participants had AH by the 2022 AHA threshold (72%) than the 2014 AHA (46%, p = 0.02) and ESH (48%, p = 0.03) thresholds. AH defined by the 2022 AHA threshold continued to maintain higher odds, larger AUC, and higher sensitivity to identify LVTOI than the 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds; however, the difference did not reach a statistically significant level.

CONCLUSIONS

AH defined by the 2022 AHA threshold diagnoses more children with hypertension and identifies more children with hypertension-induced target organ injury than the 2014 AHA and ESH thresholds. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Ambulatory hypertension diagnosed by 24-h mean ambulatory versus day and night ambulatory blood pressure thresholds in children: a cross-sectional study

Background

The agreement between the commonly used ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) thresholds to diagnose ambulatory hypertension in children (patient’s 24-h mean ABP classified by 24-h 95th ABP percentile threshold, American Heart Association [AHA] threshold, or patient’s day and night mean ABP classified by day-night 95th ABP percentile thresholds) is not known. We evaluated the agreement among 24-h ABP threshold, AHA threshold, and day-night ABP thresholds to diagnose ambulatory hypertension, white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MH).

Methods

In a cross-sectional study design, we analyzed ABP recordings from 450 participants with suspected hypertension from a tertiary care outpatient hypertension clinic. The American Academy of Pediatrics thresholds were used to diagnose office hypertension.

Results

The 24-h ABP threshold and day-night ABP thresholds classified 19% ABP (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15–0.23) differently into ambulatory normotension/hypertension (kappa [κ], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51–0.66). Ambulatory hypertension diagnosed by 24-h ABP threshold in 27% participants (95% CI, 0.22–0.32) was significantly lower than that by day-night ABP thresholds in 44% participants (95% CI, 0.37–0.50; P < 0.001). The AHA threshold had a stronger agreement with 24-h ABP threshold than with day-night ABP thresholds for classifying ABP into ambulatory normotension/hypertension (k 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.98 vs. k 0.59, 95% CI 0.52–0.66). The diagnosis of ambulatory hypertension by the AHA threshold (26%; 95% CI, 0.21–0.31) was closer to that by 24-h ABP threshold (27%, P = 0.73) than by day-night ABP thresholds (44%, P < 0.001). Similar agreement pattern persisted among these ABP thresholds for diagnosing WCH and MH.

Conclusions

The 24-h ABP threshold classifies a lower proportion of ABP as ambulatory hypertension than day-night ABP thresholds. The AHA threshold exhibits a stronger agreement with 24-h ABP than with day-night ABP thresholds for diagnosing ambulatory hypertension, WCH and MH. Our findings are relevant for a consistent interpretation of hypertension by these ABP thresholds in clinical practice.

Variation in paediatric 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring interpretation by Canadian and UK physicians

Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is widely accepted as a more accurate method for measurement of blood pressure (BP) compared to a single office-based measurement of BP. However, it is unclear how physicians interpret ABPM and make management decisions. This study's goal is to investigate variation in ABPM interpretation among paediatric nephrologists (Canada and UK) and paediatric cardiologists (Canada only) via an online survey. The survey content included baseline demographics, questions on the use and indications for ABPM, interpretation of results, and subsequent management decisions in various clinical scenarios. The survey was sent to 196 Canadian physicians, with 69 (35.2%) total responses. Thirty-five UK clinicians also completed the survey. Most respondents were >44 years old, were in practice for at least 11 years, and were university-based. There were substantial differences among clinicians in ABPM interpretation for isolated systolic, diastolic, and night-time hypertension. For example, only 53.1% of physicians would initiate or modify treatment in those with diastolic HTN in CKD. Further, even for the same abnormal ABPM parameter, the decision to start or alter treatment was influenced by the underlying medical condition. There is significant variation in clinical practice among physicians for interpretation and management of hypertension when using ABPM. Differences in guidelines among various jurisdictions, as well as knowledge gaps in the research on which guidelines are based, create ambiguity regarding ABPM interpretation and management decisions. A more protocolized approach and further insight into the reasoning behind the variation in physicians' interpretation may help to standardise practice.

Re-evaluating hypertension in children according to different guidelines: a single-center study

We aimed to evaluate the agreements between the guidelines used for both office blood pressure (OBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Our secondary aim was to define the best threshold to assess children at risk of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Thresholds proposed by the Fourth Report (FR), European Society of Hypertension (ESH), and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for OBP and the Wühl, ESH, and American Heart Association (AHA) for ABPM were used, and nine different BP phenotype combinations were created. The agreements between the thresholds, the sensitivity of the thresholds, and the BP phenotypes used to predict LVH were determined in 949 patients with different ages and body mass indices (BMIs). The agreements between the guidelines for OBP and ABPM were "good" and "very good" (κ = 0.639; 95% CI, 0.638-0.640, κ = 0.986; 95% CI, 0.985-0.988), respectively. To classify OBP and ABPM into BP phenotypes, we obtained nine different combinations, which had "very good" agreement (κ = 0.880; 95% CI, 0.879-0.880). The sensitivity of AAP for detecting LVH was the highest in <12-year-old obese children (S = 75.8, 95% CI, 56.4-89.7). The sensitivity of ABPM in detecting LVH was similar among different age and BMI groups. The sensitivity of different BP phenotypes tended to be higher in the groups where OBP was evaluated according to AAP. The highest sensitivity was detected in the 13- to 15-year-old normal weight group.(S: 88.8, 95% CI, 51.7-99.7). The AAP guideline is more sensitive and decisive for BP phenotypes to detect LVH, especially in normal-weight children ≤ 15 years, while ABPM thresholds for children have limited effect.

Diagnosis of hypertension: Ambulatory pediatric American Heart Association/European Society of Hypertension versus blood pressure load thresholds

The agreement between the traditionally-used ambulatory blood pressure (ABP)-load thresholds in children and recently-recommended pediatric American Heart Association (AHA)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) ABP thresholds for diagnosing ambulatory hypertension (AH), white coat hypertension (WCH), and masked hypertension (MH) has not been evaluated. In this cross-sectional study on 450 outpatient participants, the authors evaluated the agreement between previously used ABP-load 25%, 30%, 40%, 50% thresholds and the AHA/ESH thresholds for diagnosing AH, WCH, and MH. The American Academy of Pediatrics thresholds were used to diagnose office hypertension. The AHA threshold diagnosed ambulatory normotension/hypertension closest to ABP load 50% in 88% (95% CI 0.79, 0.96) participants (k 0.67, 95% CI 0.59, 0.75) and the ESH threshold diagnosed ambulatory normotension/hypertension closest to ABP load 40% in 86% (95% CI 0.77, 0.94) participants (k 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.74). In contrast, the AHA/ESH thresholds had a relatively weaker agreement with ABP load 25%/30%. Therefore, the diagnosis of AH was closest between the AHA threshold and ABP load 50% (difference 3%, 95% CI -2.6%, 8.6%, p = .29) and between the ESH threshold and ABP load 40% (difference 4%, 95% CI -2.1%, 10.1%, p = .19) than between the AHA/ESH and ABP load 25%/30% thresholds. A similar agreement pattern persisted between the AHA/ESH and various ABP load thresholds for diagnosing WCH and MH. The AHA and ESH thresholds diagnosed AH, WCH, and MH closest to ABP load 40%/50% than ABP load 25%/30%. Future outcome-based studies are needed to guide the optimal use of these ABP thresholds in clinical practice.

Diagnosis of Pediatric Hypertension: European Society of Hypertension-Recommended 24-Hour vs. 24-Hour-Day-Night Ambulatory Blood Pressure Thresholds

BACKGROUND

The impact of diagnosing pediatric hypertension based on all three-24-hour, day and night ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) thresholds (combined ABP threshold) vs. conventionally used 24-hour ABP threshold is not known.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional, retrospective study from a tertiary care outpatient clinic, we evaluated the diagnosis of hypertension based on the 24-hour European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and combined ESH ABP thresholds in untreated children with essential hypertension. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Fourth Report thresholds were used to classify office blood pressure (OBP).

RESULTS

In 159 children, aged 5-18 years, the 24-hour ESH and combined ESH thresholds classified 82% (95th confidence interval (CI) 0.68, 0.97) ABP similarly with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 (95th CI 0.80, 0.91). However, the AUC of the 2 ABP thresholds was significantly higher in the participants with office hypertension than office normotension, with OBP classified by the AAP (AUC 0.93, 95th CI 0.84, 0.98 vs. 0.80, 95th CI 0.71, 0.88) or Fourth Report (AUC 0.93, 95th CI 0.83, 0.98 vs. 0.81, 95th CI 0.73, 0.88) threshold. With OBP classified by the either OBP threshold, the combined ESH threshold diagnosed significantly more masked hypertension (MH) (difference 15%, 95th CI 4.9, 24.7; P = 0.00); however, the diagnosis of white coat hypertension (WCH) by the 2 ABP thresholds did not differ significantly (difference 4%, 95th CI 1.8, 10; P = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

In children with essential hypertension, the 24-hour and combined ESH thresholds have a stronger agreement for diagnosing WCH than MH.

Reclassification of adolescent hypertension by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring using adult norms and association with left ventricular hypertrophy

2017 pediatric blood pressure (BP) guidelines applied adult BP norms to define clinic hypertension (HTN) in patients ≥ 13 years. 2014 pediatric ambulatory BP monitor (ABPM) guidelines recommend age‐ and sex‐specific percentile norms for patients < 18 years. The authors evaluated reclassification of HTN when applying adult ABPM norms in patients ≥ 13 years and assessed the association of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) with HTN. Charts of patients 13–17 years with ABPM 9/2018–5/2019 were reviewed for sex, age, height, weight, BP medication, ABPM results, and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). American Heart Association 2005 (AHA 2005), AHA 2017 (AHA 2017), and European Society of Hypertension 2018 (ESH 2018) guidelines for adult ABPM were compared with 2014 AHA pediatric norms (pABPM). HTN was defined by each guideline using only ABPM. ABPM and clinic BP were used to classify white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MH). LVH was defined as LVMI > 51 g/m^2.7. 272 patients had adequate ABPM. 124 patients also had echocardiogram. All adult norms resulted in significant reclassification of HTN. LVMI correlated significantly with systolic BP only. The odds of a patient with HTN having LVH was significant using AHA 2005 (OR: 8.75 [2.1, 36.4], p = .03) and ESH 2018 (OR: 4.94 [1, 24.3], p = .002). Significant reclassification of HTN occurs with all adult norms. HTN is significantly associated with LVH using AHA 2005 and ESH 2018. Applying pediatric norms for ABPM while using adult norms for clinic BP causes confusion. Guideline selection should balance misdiagnosis with over‐diagnosis.