White-coat hypertension: growing evidence in favour of its adverse prognostic significance

Interpretation of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring for Risk Stratification in Hypertensive Patients: The 'Ambulatory Does Prediction Valid (ADPV)' Approach

Several outcome-based prospective investigations have provided solid data which support the prognostic value of 24 h ambulatory blood pressure over and beyond cardiovascular traditional risk factors. Average 24 h, daytime, and nighttime blood pressures are the principal components of the ambulatory blood pressure profile that have improved cardiovascular risk stratification beyond traditional risk factors. Furthermore, several additional ambulatory blood pressure measures have been investigated. The correct interpretation in clinical practice of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring needs a standardization of methods. Several algorithms for its clinical use have been proposed. Implementation of the results of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the management of individual subjects with the aim of improving risk stratification is challenging. We suggest that clinicians should focus attention on ambulatory blood pressure components which have been proven to act as the main independent predictors of outcome (average 24 h, daytime, and nighttime blood pressure, pulse pressure, dipping status, BP variability).

The many faces of hypertension in individuals with type 1 diabetes

Several disturbed blood pressure (BP) patterns, including disparities between office and out-of-office BP measurements (such as white-coat and masked hypertension), disturbed circadian BP variability (such as abnormal dipping patterns and nocturnal hypertension) and treatment-resistant hypertension, are common in individuals with type 1 diabetes. Consequently, office or home BP measurements alone may not reflect real BP variation and may lead to inadequate diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. The early detection of these disturbed BP patterns is especially crucial in individuals with type 1 diabetes, as these patterns may indicate future development of adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes. In this review we will describe these disturbed BP patterns and discuss recent findings on their prevalence and outcomes. We will also address critical areas for future research to determine the true prevalence and prognosis of disturbed BP patterns, and to optimize and improve the knowledge and management of high-risk individuals with type 1 diabetes and disturbed BP patterns.

Hypertension and metabolic disorders, a glance from different phenotypes

The extraordinary expansion of cardiometabolic risk factors, the impact they generate in the development of hypertension and its specific phenotypes, and its implications in cardiovascular risk and therapeutic decision-making deserve an extensive and careful reflection. The aim of this review is to analyze the available evidence and gaps in the relationship between cardiometabolic risk factors and hypertension phenotypes. Overweight or obese patients, dyslipidemic, carbohydrate intolerant and type 2 diabetic patients have a significantly higher probability of suffering from high blood pressure than subjects without metabolic disorders. Masked hypertension should be systematically suspected in subjects with type 2 diabetes or metabolic disorders and borderline hypertension independently of the debate on the reproducibility of blood pressure phenotypes diagnosis. Some minor difficulties emerge to understand the phenotypes of hypertension in diabetic individuals, since clinical practice guidelines are not homogeneous in their postulates regarding the blood pressure targets at office and ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring. The small number of diabetic hypertensive patients included in epidemiological studies, and the presence of confounding factors, such as the duration of diabetes, the quantity and type of drugs indicated for the treatment of both hypertension and diabetes, or the level of diabetes control, undermine the possibilities to draw conclusions of value for the clinical practice.

A conceptual framework for understanding iatrophobia

OBJECTIVE

Iatrophobia - fear of doctors, medical care, or the medical care system - is common among patients and can negatively impact their health-seeking behaviors and relationships with health care professionals. Despite this, academic literature on iatrophobia often fails to explore its nuanced causes.

METHODS

We establish a conceptual framework of iatrophobia, categorizing sources of fear that may create barriers to accessing medical care, and recommend a research agenda to address this phenomenon and understand its role in medical care.

RESULTS

The framework includes three categories of determinants of iatrophobia: patient fear of illness and the medical exam, patient fear of physician reaction, and patient fear related to barriers to care. These categories represent influences from individual to more system-related factors associated with the physician-patient relationship. Research examining iatrophobia should focus on understanding its prevalence, how patients cope with their fear, discussing iatrophobia in the physician-patient encounter, the sociopolitical contribution to iatrophobia, and how iatrophobia can be reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrophobia can be categorized into three primary domains, but it remains poorly understood.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A more thorough understanding of iatrophobia will help to contextualize its role amid other barriers to care and patient health outcomes.

2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension: The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Society of Hypertension

: Document reviewers: Guy De Backer (ESC Review Co-ordinator) (Belgium), Anthony M. Heagerty (ESH Review Co-ordinator) (UK), Stefan Agewall (Norway), Murielle Bochud (Switzerland), Claudio Borghi (Italy), Pierre Boutouyrie (France), Jana Brguljan (Slovenia), Héctor Bueno (Spain), Enrico G. Caiani (Italy), Bo Carlberg (Sweden), Neil Chapman (UK), Renata Cifkova (Czech Republic), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Jean-Philippe Collet (France), Ioan Mircea Coman (Romania), Peter W. de Leeuw (The Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (The Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Hans-Christoph Diener (Germany), Maria Dorobantu (Romania), Robert Fagard (Belgium), Csaba Farsang (Hungary), Marc Ferrini (France), Ian M. Graham (Ireland), Guido Grassi (Italy), Hermann Haller (Germany), F. D. Richard Hobbs (UK), Bojan Jelakovic (Croatia), Catriona Jennings (UK), Hugo A. Katus (Germany), Abraham A. Kroon (The Netherlands), Christophe Leclercq (France), Dragan Lovic (Serbia), Empar Lurbe (Spain), Athanasios J. Manolis (Greece), Theresa A. McDonagh (UK), Franz Messerli (Switzerland), Maria Lorenza Muiesan (Italy), Uwe Nixdorff (Germany), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Gianfranco Parati (Italy), Joep Perk (Sweden), Massimo Francesco Piepoli (Italy), Jorge Polonia (Portugal), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Stefano F. Rimoldi (Switzerland), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Naveed Sattar (UK), Petar M. Seferovic (Serbia), Iain A. Simpson (UK), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Alice V. Stanton (Ireland), Philippe van de Borne (Belgium), Panos Vardas (Greece), Massimo Volpe (Italy), Sven Wassmann (Germany), Stephan Windecker (Switzerland), Jose Luis Zamorano (Spain).The disclosure forms of all experts involved in the development of these Guidelines are available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines.