Reproducibility of masked hypertension and office-based hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Masked phenomenon: renal and cardiovascular complications; review and updates

BACKGROUND

In the in-clinic blood pressure (BP) recording setting, a sizable number of individuals with normal BP and approximately 30% of patients with chronic renal disease (CKD) exhibit elevated outpatient BP records. These individuals are known as masked hypertension (MHTN), and when they are on antihypertensive medications, but their BP is not controlled, they are called masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUHTN). The masked phenomenon (MP) (MHTN and MUHTN) increases susceptibility to end-organ damage (a two-fold greater risk for cardiovascular events and kidney dysfunction). The potential extension of the observed benefits of MP therapy, including a reduction in end-organ damage, remains questionable.

AIM AND METHODS

This review aims to study the diagnostic methodology, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and significance of MP management in end-organs, especially the kidneys, cardiovascular system, and outcomes. To achieve the purposes of this non-systematic comprehensive review, PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar were searched using keywords, texts, and phrases such as masked phenomenon, CKD and HTN, HTN types, HTN definition, CKD progression, masked HTN, MHTN, masked uncontrolled HTN, CKD onset, and cardiovascular system and MHTN. We restricted the search process to the last ten years to search for the latest updates.

CONCLUSION

MHTN is a variant of HTN that can be missed if medical professionals are unaware of it. Early detection by ambulatory or home BP recording in susceptible individuals reduces end-organ damage and progresses to sustained HTN. Adherence to the available recommendations when dealing with masked phenomena is justifiable; however, further studies and recommendation updates are required.

When and how to use ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and home blood pressure monitoring for managing hypertension

Many individuals have different blood pressure (BP) values in the office setting compared to that outside the office setting. Therefore, confirming hypertension based on office BP (OBP) measurement alone can lead to misdiagnosis and mistreatment. The limitations of OBP measurement have led to the complementary use of out-of-office BP measurements, including 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM). This review aims to describe when and how ABPM or HBPM can be used to accurately diagnose and treat hypertension. Both methods should be performed using validated automated oscillometric devices. To minimize user errors, ABPM should be performed using standard techniques, whereas HBPM requires patient education regarding proper BP measurements. ABPM provides short-term comprehensive information on BP, including daytime, nighttime, morning, and 24-h BP. Therefore, ABPM is recommended for the initial diagnosis of hypertension, assessment of BP phenotypes and circadian patterns, and detection of nocturnal hypertension, Furthermore, ABPM plays a critical role in confirming true resistant hypertension thereby excluding pseudo-resistant hypertension. However, it is not suitable for long-term follow-up of patients with hypertension. In contrast, HBPM involves multiple BP readings taken at specific times during the day and evening over a long period. Therefore, HBPM is recommended for diagnosing hypertension and assessing BP phenotypes. However, this method has limitations in measuring nocturnal BP and circadian BP patterns. HBPM is preferred over ABPM for the long-term follow-up of patients with hypertension. This approach improves patient adherence to treatment and ultimately enhances the rate of control of hypertension. Additionally, both methods play an important role in diagnosing and treating white coat hypertension during pregnancy. Consequently, out-of-office BP measurement is essential to prevent the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of hypertension. However, these two methods offer different information regarding the BP status of an individual, and they indeed show discrepancies in the diagnosis of hypertensive phenotypes. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the advantages and limitations of both ABPM and HBPM to ensure their appropriate use in clinical practice.

Masked Hypertension in Healthy Children and Adolescents: Who Should Be Screened?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal is to review masked hypertension (MH) as a relatively new phenomenon when patients have normal office BP but elevated out-of-office BP. Firstly, it was described in children in 2004. It has received increased attention in the past decade.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of MH in different pediatric populations differs widely between 0 and 60% based on the population studied, definition of MH, or method of out-of-office BP measurement. The highest prevalence of MH has been demonstrated in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD), obesity, diabetes, and after heart transplantation. In healthy children but with risk factors for hypertension such as prematurity, overweight/obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or positive family history of hypertension, the prevalence of MH is 9%. In healthy children without risk factors for hypertension, the prevalence of MH is very low ranging 0-3%. In healthy children, only patients with the following clinical conditions should be screened for MH: high-normal/elevated office BP, positive family history of hypertension, and those referred for suspected hypertension who have normal office BP in the secondary/tertiary center.

The long-term reproducibility of the white-coat effect on blood pressure as a continuous variable from the Ohasama Study

There is little information about the reproducibility of the white coat effect, which was treated as a continuous variable. To investigate a long-term interval reproducibility of the white-coat effect as a continuous variable. We selected 153 participants without antihypertensive treatment (men, 22.9%; age, 64.4 years) from the general population of Ohasama, Japan, to assess the repeatedly measured white-coat effect (the difference between blood pressures at the office and home) in a 4-year interval. The reproducibility was assessed by testing the intraclass correlation coefficient (two-way random effect model-single measures). The white-coat effect for systolic/diastolic blood pressure slightly decreased by 0.17/1.56 mmHg at the 4-year visit on average. The Bland-Altman plots showed no significant systemic error for the white-coat effects (P ≥ 0.24). The intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) of the white-coat effect for systolic blood pressure, office systolic blood pressure, and home systolic blood pressure were 0.41 (0.27-0.53), 0.64 (0.52-0.74), and 0.74 (0.47-0.86), respectively. Change in the white-coat effect was mainly affected by a change in office blood pressure. Long-term reproducibility of the white-coat effect is limited in the general population without antihypertensive treatment. The change in the white-coat effect is mainly caused by office blood pressure variation.

Unmasking left ventricular systolic dysfunction in masked hypertension: looking at myocardial strain. A review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

A growing body of evidence supports the view that masked hypertension (MH) (i.e. normal office and elevated out-of-office BP) is a blood pressure (BP) phenotype associated with increased risk of subclinical organ damage, cardiovascular disease and death as compared to true normotension. Whether left ventricular (LV) systolic function is impaired in individuals with MH is still a poorly defined topic. Therefore, we aimed to provide a new piece of information on LV systolic dysfunction in the untreated MH setting, focusing on speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) studies investigating LV global longitudinal strain (GLS), a more sensitive index of systolic function than conventional LV ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

A computerized search was performed using Pub-Med, OVID, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from inception until June 30, 2022. Full articles reporting data on LV GLS in MH, as assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), and normotensive controls were considered suitable for the purposes of review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 329 untreated individuals with MH and 376 normotensive controls were included in six studies. While pooled average LVEF was not different between groups [64.5 ± 1.5 and 64.5 ± 1.3%, respectively, standard means difference (SMD): -0.002 ± 0.08, confidence interval (CI): 0.15/-0.15, P = 0.98), LV GLS was worse in MH patients than in normotensive counterparts (-18.5 ± 0.70 vs. -20.0 ± 0.34%, SMD: 0.68 ± 0.28, CI: 0.12/1.24, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that early changes in LV systolic function not detectable by conventional echocardiography in the MH setting can be unmasked by STE and that its implementation of STE in current practice may improve the detection of subclinical organ damage of adverse prognostic significance.