Antihypertensive efficacy of manidipine and enalapril in hypertensive diabetic patients

Treatment of hypertensive patients with diabetes: beyond blood pressure control and focus on manidipine

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors should be considered as the first-line therapy in the treatment of patients with hypertension and diabetes. However, most of the diabetic subjects with hypertension require at least two drugs to achieve blood pressure targets. The ACCOMPLISH trial suggested that the best combination in the treatment of high-risk hypertensive patients should include a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor and a dihydropyridine. However, not all dihydropyridines block the same receptors. Those dihydropyridines that block T-type calcium channel blockers may provide additional advantages. A number of studies suggest that compared with amlodipine, manidipine have the same antihypertensive efficacy, but with a lesser risk of ankle edema. In addition, manidipine, but not amlodipine, significantly reduces urinary albumin excretion rates.

Role of manidipine in the management of patients with hypertension

Manidipine is a third-generation dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, which causes systemic vasodilation by inhibiting the voltage-dependent calcium inward currents in smooth muscle cells. In clinical studies, manidipine has been shown to significantly lower office and 24-h blood pressure compared with placebo in patients with essential hypertension. The resulting reduction in blood pressure is maintained over 24 h, with preservation of the circadian blood pressure pattern; its blood pressure-lowering capacity appears to be similar to that of other calcium antagonists. In elderly patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, manidipine is able to significantly decrease blood pressure compared with placebo for up to 3 years of treatment. The drug also significantly lowers blood pressure in patients with hypertension and concomitant Type 2 diabetes mellitus or renal impairment, and is devoid of adverse metabolic effects. It is well-tolerated with few untoward adverse effects related to vasodilation. In particular, manidipine appears to have less potential for pedal edema than other calcium channel blockers.

Combination delapril/manidipine as antihypertensive therapy in high-risk patients

The majority of patients with hypertension, and in particular high-risk patients or those with diabetes mellitus or renal dysfunction, are likely to require combination therapy with at least two antihypertensive agents (from different classes) to achieve their blood pressure (BP) target. The delapril/manidipine fixed-dose combination consists of two antihypertensive agents with different, yet complementary, mechanisms of action. Delapril/manidipine has demonstrated short- and long-term antihypertensive efficacy in a number of clinical studies in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy. Comparative studies have demonstrated that delapril/manidipine is as effective as enalapril/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy, and as effective as irbesartan/HCTZ, losartan/HCTZ, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ, ramipril/HCTZ and valsartan/HCTZ in reducing BP in patients with hypertension and diabetes, or in obese patients with hypertension. Therapy with delapril/manidipine also appears to exert beneficial effects that extend beyond a reduction in BP, including nephroprotective activity and an improvement in fibrinolytic balance, supporting its value as a treatment option in these patient populations at high or very high cardiovascular risk because of the presence of organ damage, diabetes or renal disease.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of manidipine versus amlodipine in elderly subjects with isolated systolic hypertension: MAISH study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) affects 10-20% of the elderly population and is strongly related to the risk of cardiovascular events. Elevated systolic BP values are primarily caused by reduced large vessel compliance with a consequent increase in total peripheral resistance. Vasodilating drugs, such as calcium channel antagonists, have proven to be effective in controlling ISH in elderly patients. This study set out to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of two different calcium channel antagonists, manidipine and amlodipine, administered once daily in elderly subjects with ISH.

METHODS

In a European, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group study, after a 2-week placebo run-in period, 195 patients aged >or=60 years with ISH received manidipine 10-20 mg once daily or amlodipine 5-10 mg once daily. Chlortalidone 25mg once daily could be added to the high dose of test drug in the event of insufficient antihypertensive control. The primary efficacy parameter was the proportion of patients with a reduction in office sitting systolic BP (SBP) >or=15 mm Hg, measured at trough, at the final visit. Secondary efficacy parameters included: the proportion of patients with a normal sitting SBP value (<140 mm Hg) at the final visit; a change from baseline to the final visit in mean office trough sitting SBP; a change from baseline to the final visit in the cardiovascular risk score as measured by the INDANA (INdividual Data ANalysis of Antihypertensive intervention trials) project score; the proportion of patients with at least a two-point reduction in the cardiovascular risk score; the percentage of patients requiring upward dose titration and diuretic add-on treatment and the investigator's final judgement. Safety and tolerability evaluations were based on adverse events, ECG and laboratory tests, and clinically relevant reports of abnormalities.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat population (n = 189), 76% and 72% of patients in the manidipine and amlodipine groups, respectively, had a reduction in sitting SBP of >or=15 mm Hg (p-value not significant for between-group comparison). The percentage of patients with a normal sitting SBP value was 52% in the manidipine group and 51% in the amlodipine group (p-value not significant for between-group comparison). Sitting SBP reductions at the end of treatment were -19.5 +/- 11.8 mm Hg in patients receiving manidipine and -18.4 +/- 11.1 mm Hg in patients receiving amlodipine. Both treatments induced a small reduction in cardiovascular risk score, with 45% of patients in both treatment groups having a two-point reduction in the final score. At the final visit, approximately half of the patients in both treatment groups were still being treated with the low dose of one of the test drugs (manidipine 10mg or amlodipine 5mg). Chlortalidone was added to the high dose of test drugs in 7% and 11% of patients in the amlodipine and manidipine groups, respectively. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a higher incidence of oedema in the amlodipine group (9% vs 4%). No clinically relevant changes in heart rate were induced by either treatment.

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients with ISH, treatment with manidipine for 12 weeks was well tolerated and effective and the antihypertensive effects obtained with manidipine were the same as those obtained with amlodipine.

The effect of nimodipine on calcium homeostasis and pain sensitivity in diabetic rats

1. The pathogenesis of diabetic neuropathy is a complex phenomenon, the mechanisms of which are not fully understood. Our previous studies have shown that the intracellular calcium signaling is impaired in primary and secondary nociceptive neurons in rats with streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetes. Here, we investigated the effect of prolonged treatment with the L-type calcium channel blocker nimodipine on diabetes-induced changes in neuronal calcium signaling and pain sensitivity. 2. Diabetes was induced in young rats (21 p.d.) by a streptozotocin injection. After 3 weeks of diabetes development, the rats were treated with nimodipine for another 3 weeks. The effect of nimodipine treatment on calcium homeostasis in nociceptive dorsal root ganglion neurons (DRG) and substantia gelatinosa (SG) neurons of the spinal cord slices was examined with fluorescent imaging technique. 3. Nimodipine treatment was not able to normalize elevated resting intracellular calcium ([Ca(2+)]( i )) levels in small DRG neurons. However, it was able to restore impaired Ca(2+) release from the ER, induced by either activation of ryanodine receptors or by receptor-independent mechanism in both DRG and SG neurons. 4. The beneficiary effects of nimodipine treatment on [Ca(2+)]( i ) signaling were paralleled with the reversal of diabetes-induced thermal hypoalgesia and normalization of the acute phase of the response to formalin injection. Nimodipine treatment was also able to shorten the duration of the tonic phase of formalin response to the control values. 5. To separate vasodilating effect of nimodipine Biessels et al., (Brain Res. 1035:86-93) from its effect on neuronal Ca(2+) channels, a group of STZ-diabetic rats was treated with vasodilator - enalapril. Enalapril treatment also have some beneficial effect on normalizing Ca(2+) release from the ER, however, it was far less explicit than the normalizing effect of nimodipine. Effect of enalapril treatment on nociceptive behavioral responses was also much less pronounced. It partially reversed diabetes-induced thermal hypoalgesia, but did not change the characteristics of the response to formalin injection. 6. The results of this study suggest that chronic nimodipine treatment may be effective in restoring diabetes-impaired neuronal calcium homeostasis as well as reduction of diabetes-induced thermal hypoalgesia and noxious stimuli responses. The nimodipine effect is mediated through a direct neuronal action combined with some vascular mechanism.

Antihypertensive effect of manidipine

Manidipine is a lipophilic, third-generation, highly vasoselective, dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel antagonist, which, when given on a once-daily basis, effectively reduces blood pressure (BP) in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Manidipine has a gradual onset and a long duration of action, effectively maintaining reduced BP levels throughout the 24-hour dosing period, and is effective in the long term with no evidence of intolerance. The BP-lowering capacity of manidipine is similar to that of other established DHPs and of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Diabetic patients and very elderly patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension also respond favourably to treatment with manidipine. Manidipine has neutral effects on glucose and lipid metabolism and is generally well tolerated. Manidipine thus represents a first-line option for lowering BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Fixed combination of manidipine and delapril in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension: evaluation by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

This present study assessed the antihypertensive efficacy of the fixed combination of manidipine and delapril by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy with either component. After a 2-week placebo period, 55 mild to moderate hypertensive patients were randomized to manidipine 20 mg o.d. or delapril 30 mg b.i.d. for 4 weeks. After this period, 30 patients, aged 30-76 years (18 males and 12 females) whose diastolic blood pressure was not adequately controlled (> or = 90 mmHg) by monotherapy were treated with the fixed combination of manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg o.d. for 8 weeks. A 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring recording was performed at the end of the placebo washout, of the monotherapy and of the combination therapy. Blood pressure control over the 24 h was quantified by the trough-to-peak ratio and the smoothness index. As compared to placebo, the fixed combination of manidipine and delapril produced a statistically significant (p<0.01) decrease in sitting clinic (18 +/- 9/14 +/- 5 mmHg) and 24-h blood pressure (12 +/- 7/10 +/- 5 mmHg) without affecting heart rate. This reduction was greater than that observed with single components. At the end of the 8-week combination treatment period, the rate of normalilized patients was 73%. Treatment with the fixed combination was associated with a positively high smoothness index (1.2 +/- 0.7/13.8 +/- 0.8) and with a relatively good trough-to-peak ratio (0.46/0.60). The combination of manidipine and delapril produced significant and smooth reductions in blood pressure values, which persisted over the 24-h dosing interval. These results support the use of fixed manidipine-delapril combination in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by monotherapy.

Manidipine versus enalapril monotherapy in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 24-week study

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure reduction is associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular events and death, particularly in patients with both hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and effect on metabolic risk factors of manidipine, a new dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, and enalapril, a widely used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind trial compared manidipine and enalapril in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-104 mm Hg, systolic blood pressure [SBP] < or =190 mm Hg). Following a 3-week, single-blind placebo run-in period, eligible patients were randomized to receive either manidipine 10 mg or enalapril 10 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The dose was doubled after 3 weeks in patients who had not responded to treatment (DBP > or =90 mm Hg). The primary efficacy end point was change in DBP from baseline to the end of the study. Secondary outcomes were the responder rate (DBP <90 mm Hg and/or a DBP reduction of > or =10 mm Hg) at the end of the study. Other secondary measures were changes from baseline to the end of the study in heart rate and in the following measures obtained by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM): 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime mean DBP and SBP, and the trough:peak ratio. Blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, and creatinine were measured at the end of the placebo run-in period and the end of treatment. The study had 80% power to detect a between-treatment difference in mean sitting DBP of >3 mm Hg.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled in the study. After the placebo run-in period, 13 patients were excluded from the study: 4 for DBP values outside the specified limits, 7 at their request, and 2 for adverse events. Thus, 111 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to treatment (53 manidipine, 58 enalapril). The population consisted of 61 men and 50 women with a mean (SD) age of 62 (11) years and a body mass index of 28.2 (2.4) kg/m2. Among patients who completed the study, drug doses were doubled in 67.6% (25/37) of patients in the manidipine group and 60.0% (24/40) of patients in the enalapril group (P = NS). Similar reductions in blood pressure were observed in both groups, from a mean (SD) of 164 (12)/97.5 (5) mm Hg at baseline to 141 (12)/84.5 (6) mm Hg at the end of the study in the manidipine group (P < 0.01), and from 159 (12)/98 (4) mm Hg to 139 (12)/86 (8) mm Hg in the enalapril group (P < 0.01). The proportion of responders was 66.7% (32/48) in the manidipine group and 60.0% (30/50) in the enalapril group; the difference between groups was not significant. Twenty-four-hour ABPM revealed significant (P < 0.01) and similar reductions in blood pressure in both groups, with a trough:peak ratio of approximately -50%. Neither drug affected heart rate. Among the statistically significant changes in metabolic parameters, significant reductions in HbA(1c) (from 6.7% [1.4%] to 6.2% [1.1%]) and blood glucose concentrations (from 152 [44] to 143 [44] mg/dL) were observed only in the manidipine group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, manidipine was as metabolically neutral and as effective as enalapril in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, providing a sustained 24-hour antihypertensive effect.

Manidipine: a review of its use in the management of hypertension

Manidipine is a lipophilic, third-generation dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist with a high degree of selectivity for the vasculature, thereby inducing marked peripheral vasodilation with negligible cardiodepression. In addition, manidipine does not significantly affect norepinephrine levels, suggesting a lack of sympathetic activation. It has a gradual onset of action and a long duration of action enabling once daily administration. Furthermore, manidipine dilates both the efferent and the afferent renal arterioles and appears to have beneficial renal effects unrelated to its antihypertensive effect. Once-daily oral manidipine is an effective and generally well tolerated antihypertensive agent for younger and elderly adult patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. In particular, in a large double-blind trial, the incidence of ankle oedema was significantly lower in manidipine than in amlodipine recipients. Manidipine is also effective in hypertensive patients with comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or renal impairment, and appears to improve insulin sensitivity without affecting metabolic function. Thus, manidipine represents a first-line treatment option for patients with essential mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Office compared with ambulatory blood pressure in assessing response to antihypertensive treatment: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a systematic review of the studies on the effect of antihypertensive treatment on ambulatory (ABP) and office blood pressure in order to obtain a differential assessment of the magnitude of the reduction in (1) office blood pressure compared with 24-h average ABP values, and (2) daytime compared with night-time average blood pressure values.

DATA SOURCES

Medline search, Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

This review is based on a meta-analysis (carried out according to the Quality of Reports of Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials Group statement, whenever applicable) of papers on the effect of antihypertensive drugs on blood pressure. Papers were selected if they provided information on drug-induced changes in one or both of: (1) both office blood pressure and 24-h ABP, and/or (2) both daytime and night-time average blood pressure. Additional inclusion criteria were administration of antihypertensive drugs for at least 1 week and good quality ABP, according to current guidelines. Comparison between the effect of treatment on blood pressure values was made by meta-regression of the data provided by the individual studies (weighted by their size) and by calculating differences between weighted average values obtained by pooling the results of individual papers.

RESULTS

We identified 984 papers on this issue by Medline search, with no additional information from the Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were satisfied by only 44 papers, which were included in the final analysis. The results showed that treatment-induced reduction in blood pressure is both smaller for the 24-h average than for the office systolic and diastolic blood pressure and smaller for night-time than for daytime average diastolic blood pressure, the average ratio ranging from 0.67 to 0.75. A different ratio characterized the treatment-induced changes in office blood pressure and ABP in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) ABP substudy.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of antihypertensive treatment is greater on office blood pressure than on ABP, and is unevenly distributed between day and night. This suggests caution when interpreting trials on cardiovascular protection by antihypertensive treatment that are based only on office blood pressure readings, and advocates a more systematic adoption of ABP monitoring in these trials. The conflicting data provided by the main HOPE study and by the HOPE-ABP monitoring substudy on the role of blood pressure reduction in explaining the reduced event rates associated with treatment by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are a clear example of the importance of performing ABP monitoring in trials on cardiovascular protection.

Manidipine: a review of its use in hypertension

Manidipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, which causes systemic vasodilation by inhibiting the voltage-dependent calcium inward currents in smooth muscle cells. The resulting reduction in blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension is maintained over 24 hours. Manidipine 10 to 40 mg once daily for 4 weeks significantly lowered office BP from baseline and compared with placebo, and significantly reduced 24-hour BP compared with placebo in patients with essential hypertension in a well controlled trial. The decline in BP was maintained over 24 hours (trough to peak BP ratios were >50%) without disturbing the circadian BP pattern. BP reductions with therapeutic dosages of manidipine were maintained for up to 1 year in noncomparative trials. The BP-lowering capacity of manidipine 5 to 20 mg/day appears to be similar to that of other calcium antagonists with which it has been compared in randomised double-blind and nonblind trial. In a well controlled short term trial, manidipine 10 mg daily significantly decreased trough sitting BP compared with placebo in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Decreases in BP were maintained for up to 3 years of treatment. The drug (10 or 20 mglday) also significantly lowered sitting BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus in randomised, long term comparative trials. In general, the observed reduction in BP with manidipine was similar to that observed with amlodipine, enalapril or delapril. The effects of manidipine on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) have not been clearly demonstrated in clinical trials in this patient group. BP was also reduced with manidipine in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Manidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials, with most adverse effects related to vasodilation. Commonly reported events included ankle oedema, headache. palpitation. flushing, dizziness, rash and fatigue. Manidipine appears to have less potential for pedal oedema than amlodipine.

CONCLUSIONS

Manidipine has shown antihypertensive efficacy and appears to be well tolerated in adult and elderly patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension. The BP-lowering effects of the drug in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance were not associated with any adverse metabolic effects. The effects of manidipine on UAE in this patient group remain unclear. Manidipine provides an additional treatment option for patients for whom dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are appropriate. Manidipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, which causes systemic vasodilation by inhibiting the voltage-dependent calcium inward currents in smooth muscle cells. The resulting reduction in blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension is maintained over 24 hours. Manidipine 10 to 40mg once daily for 4 weeks significantly lowered office BP from baseline and compared with placebo, and significantly reduced 24-hour BP compared with placebo in patients with essential hypertension in a well controlled trial. The decline in BP was maintained over 24 hours (trough to peak BP ratios were >50%) without disturbing the circadian BP pattern. BP reductions with therapeutic dosages of manidipine were maintained for up to 1 year in non-comparative trials. The BP-lowering capacity of manidipine 5 to 20 mg/day appears to be similar to that of other calcium antagonists with which it has been compared in randomised double-blind and nonblind trial. In a well controlled short term trial, manidipine 10 mg daily significantly decreased trough sitting BP compared with placebo in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Decreases in BP were maintained for up to 3 years of treatment. The drug (10 or 20 mg/day) also significantly lowered sitting BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus in randomised, long term comparative trials. In general, the observed reduction in BP with manidipine was similar to that observed with amlodipine, enalapril or delapril. The effects of manidipine on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) have not been clearly demonstrated in clinical trials in this patient group. BP was also reduced with manidipine in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Manidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials, with most adverse effects related to vasodilation. Commonly reported events included ankle oedema, headache. palpitation. flushing, dizziness, rash and fatigue. Manidipine appears to have less potential for pedal oedema than amlodipine.

CONCLUSIONS

Manidipine has shown antihypertensive efficacy and appears to be well tolerated in adult and elderly patients with mild or mo

Efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of long-term treatment with manidipine or amlodipine in patients with essential hypertension

This double-blind, multicenter trial compared antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of manidipine and amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients were randomly assigned to 48 weeks of once-daily manidipine, 10-20 mg, or amlodipine, 5-10 mg. Patients who did not respond to treatment after 12 weeks were also given enalapril, 10-20 mg, for the study's duration. The main efficacy end point was equivalence in sitting systolic (SiSBP) and diastolic (SiDBP) blood pressure reduction between the two drugs after 8 weeks (per protocol analysis). An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed in all patients with at least one efficacy determination during treatment. Quality of life was assessed by the "Subjective Symptoms Assessment Profile" (SSA-P) and "General Well-being Schedule" (GWBS), after 12 weeks of treatment. SiSBP reduction after 8 weeks was equivalent for manidipine (15.2 mm Hg, n = 227) and amlodipine (17.0 mm Hg, n = 219). The corresponding figure for SiDBP was 11.3 mm Hg for manidipine and 12.3 mm Hg for amlodipine. In the larger ITT population SiDBP was similarly and significantly reduced by manidipine (from 102 +/- 5 to 88 +/- 9 mm Hg, n = 241) and amlodipine (from 101 +/- 5 to 87 +/- 8 mm Hg, n = 240). Similar results were observed for SiSBP and standing SBP and DBP. Neither drug changed sitting or standing heart rate compared with baseline. SSA-P scores improved with manidipine but not amlodipine. GWBS total and partial scores increased more with manidipine than with amlodipine. Safety profile favored manidipine, which was associated with significantly less ankle edema than was amlodipine. This study shows for the first time that long-term treatment with the long-acting calcium channel blocker manidipine is as effective as treatment with amlodipine, has a better tolerability profile, and induces greater improvement in quality of life than amlodipine.

Ambulatory heart rate is underestimated when measured by an ambulatory blood pressure device

OBJECTIVE

To test the validity of ambulatory heart rate (HR) assessment with a cuff ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitor.

DESIGN

Cross-instrument comparison of HR measured intermittently by a cuff ABP monitor (SpaceLabs, Redmond, Washington, USA), with HR derived from continuous electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings (1) in a controlled laboratory experiment and (2) during long-term recording in a true naturalistic setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Six normotensive subjects participated in the laboratory study. A total of 109 male white-collar workers underwent ambulatory monitoring, of which 30 were mildly hypertensive.

METHODS

Four different laboratory conditions (postures: lying, sitting, standing, walking), repeated twice, were used to assess the short-term effects of cuff inflation on the HR. To test the actual ambulatory validity, participants simultaneously wore a continuous HR recorder and the ABP monitor from early morning to late evening on 2 workdays and one non-workday. Diary and vertical accelerometery information was used to obtain periods of fixed posture and (physical) activity across which HR from both devices was compared.

RESULTS

Laboratory results showed that the ABP device reliably detected HR during blood pressure measurement, but that this HR was systematically lower than the HR directly before and after the blood pressure measurement. The ambulatory study confirmed this systematic underestimation of the ongoing HR, but additionally showed that its amount increased when subjects went from sitting to standing to light physical activity (2.9; 4.3 and 9.1 bpm (beats/min), respectively). In spite of this activity-dependent underestimation of HR, the correlation of continuous ECG and intermittent ABP-derived HR was high (median r= 0.81). Also, underestimation was not different for normotensives and mild hypertensives.

CONCLUSIONS

A direct effect of cuff inflation leads to the underestimation of ongoing HR during cuff-based ABP measurement. Additional underestimation of HR occurs during periods with physical activity, probably due to behavioural freezing during blood pressure measurements. HR underestimation was not affected by hypertensive state. When its limitations are taken into account, ABP-derived ambulatory HR can be considered a reliable and valid measure.